get_investigation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Fetch') and transparently handles the not-completed case ('final report if completed'). It also specifies the response includes status and checkpoint timeline, leaving little ambiguity about what the agent will get.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the return contents. No filler, no redundancy. Every part earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations) and the schema's full parameter coverage, the description covers the return payload sufficiently. The only gap is the lack of explicit 'use after investigate_incident' guidance in the description, but the schema hints at this, so the tool definition as a whole is nearly complete.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Task ID returned by investigate_incident'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, fitting the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 uses a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (investigation) and enumerates exactly what is returned: status, checkpoint timeline with per-step status/durations, and final report if completed. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like investigate_incident (which starts investigations) and export_postmortem (which exports postmortems).

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or ordering. The only hint is in the schema parameter description ('Task ID returned by investigate_incident'), but this is not part of the tool description itself, so the agent receives no explicit usage guidance from the description.

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