List Investigations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts not in the annotations: results are permission-filtered to what the caller can see, and ordering is newest-first. It says nothing about pagination despite page_size/page_number parameters.

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 well-front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting filtering and pagination behavior, so it is slightly under-specified rather than maximally efficient.

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 shape needn't be described. But for a six-parameter list tool the description never indicates that results can be filtered by status, outcome, alert or incident, nor that results are paginated — gaps an agent would want before invoking it.

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 67%, so the schema itself documents most parameters, including the valid status and outcome values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is reasonably high.

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+resource ('List AI SRE investigations') and adds two distinguishing traits: visibility scoping ('you can see') and sort order ('newest first'). This separates it from get_investigation, start_investigation and cancel_investigation, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from the name that this is the enumeration entry point before calling get_investigation, and nothing mentions that results can be narrowed by status, outcome, alert or incident.

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