Chainsaw: list evidence

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the pagination contract ('Follow next_offset until null') and a consistency constraint ('the evidence tree must remain unchanged between pages').

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the scoping rationale and pagination rule. No filler or restated title.

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 no output schema the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does state that files come with sizes and types and that pagination continues until null offset. It does not describe the response envelope or the 'next_offset' field's exact shape, leaving a small gap for a paged list tool.

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 the schema already documents path, limit, offset, and pattern, making 3 the baseline. The description's 'next_offset until null' hints at the pagination field but uses a name that does not match the 'offset' parameter, adding only marginal clarity.

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 ('List artefact files below an evidence path') plus what is returned ('sizes and types'). This is clearly distinguishable from chainsw_hunt/search siblings, which analyze rather than inventory.

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?

Explicitly states the intended use: 'Use it to scope a hunt: pick directories or individual .evtx files instead of hunting an entire mount,' which contrasts with the hunt tool by implication. It does not name chainsaw_hunt directly as the alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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