Chainsaw: pivot process lineage

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

Annotations cover safety hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: each hop queries process/parent GUIDs, output is capped, and incomplete traversal is reported. The cap/traversal disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 lines, front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope constraints and behavioral caveats. No filler, though 'pivot process GUIDs' leans on insider vocabulary.

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?

For a 7-parameter read/pivot tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral facts (capped output, incomplete-traversal reporting, scope restrictions). It stops short of describing the shape of returned lineage, but that is a minor gap given the constraints.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description reinforces the 'one investigation' constraint on paths and 'exact host' on computer but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (pivot) and resource (process GUIDs) and scopes it to original evidence, including unmatched events. It is distinguishable from the analyse_* siblings, though a reader must already know Sysmon GUID lineage semantics to feel fully oriented.

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 a real precondition ('files from one investigation, not a shared evidence root' and 'an exact host'), which is useful guidance. However it never states when to reach for this versus e.g. chainsaw_analyse_evtx or chainsaw_search, so alternative routing is left implicit.

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