Get Investigation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that open_questions represent what Rootly could not verify — valuable context — but says nothing about behavior for an incomplete/cancelled investigation or whether the call blocks. A 3 is appropriate given annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the outcome (the verdict) followed by the payload contents. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and the selector logic lives in the schema. The only notable gap is investigation lifecycle state — an agent may not know whether this tool returns partial results for a running investigation or should be preceded by get_investigation_progress.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three selectors (alert_id, incident_id, investigation_id) are documented in the schema, including the omit-to-fallback rule. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (investigation) and immediately enumerates the returned payload: verdict, summary, root cause, confidence, hypotheses, evidence, causal chain, open_questions. This clearly distinguishes it from list_investigations (enumeration) and get_investigation_progress (status polling).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical about open_questions implies a follow-up workflow (verify with your own tools), which is useful implied guidance. However, nothing states when to prefer this over get_investigation_progress or list_investigations, nor what to do if the investigation is still running. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.