get_logon_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not state whether the tool reads Security.evtx in a non-destructive manner, whether admin privileges are required, or what happens if the file is missing. The term 'Extract' implies a read operation, but details about side effects or dependencies are absent.

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 a single sentence that succinctly conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and specific event IDs, and contains no unnecessary words or information.

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, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a list of event records with fields). It does not mention the output format, whether results include timestamps, users, or other fields. The tool's place among siblings is clear, but the functional completeness is lacking.

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% (top_n is described as 'Max events (default 30)'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how the parameter affects the output or acceptable ranges. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high coverage without enrichment.

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 states the action ('Extract'), the resource ('logon/logoff events from Security.evtx'), and the specific event IDs (4624, 4625, 4634). It distinguishes from sibling tools like parse_evtx (broader) and run_log2timeline (timeline analysis) by focusing narrowly on these three event types.

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. For instance, it doesn't mention that parse_evtx is better for arbitrary event log queries, or that run_log2timeline is for timeline generation. There are no excluded scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., requires Security.evtx to be available).

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