investigation_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only summary operation but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output structure looks like. For a tool with no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is extremely short, which aids conciseness, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and omits critical information like return values and usage context. It is not zero-waste prose; it is under-specified.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain whether the counts are returned as numbers, an object, or a formatted string, nor does it clarify the meaning of 'active' seeds. For such a simple tool, more detail is needed to be fully self-sufficient.

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%, so both parameters (access_token and investigation_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as providing counts of active seeds and manifest artifacts. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', the noun phrase unambiguously signals a summary/read operation and distinguishes it from sibling investigation management and artifact tools.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_investigation or list_seeds. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or expected invocation scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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