Get Investigation Progress

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: this is a long-poll that blocks up to wait_seconds and returns only deltas since a cursor. It does not describe terminal states beyond 'done is true' or behavior on an invalid/finished investigation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the loop mechanics. Every sentence carries actionable information with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description covers the polling contract end to end. Minor gaps remain around edge cases (already-finished investigation, cancelled runs), but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is already documented in the schema (after_cursor, wait_seconds range, investigation_id UUID). The description reinforces the cursor-chaining pattern but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema states; 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 and resource — follows a running investigation and returns incremental steps and tool calls. This clearly distinguishes polling from get_investigation or list_investigations in practice, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit usage loop: call with after_cursor=next_cursor and repeat until done is true. It does not state when to prefer this over get_investigation (for a snapshot) or what to do if the investigation was cancelled, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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