Explain event id

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds meaningful context annotations don't: the answer comes from a small bundled table, so coverage is limited and unknown ids may be missing. That's a real behavioral caveat.

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?

One dense sentence with zero filler; the source/table caveat and the log constraint are both front-loaded alongside the core purpose.

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?

A simple two-param read tool with a mature annotation profile and no output schema; the description supplies the table-scope caveat and required log semantics. Only a hint about what a 'not found' result looks like is absent, which is minor.

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% with a full enum for log and an integer range for event_id, so the schema carries the load. The description's note about log-scoped uniqueness duplicates the schema's own description of `log` rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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 (Explain) and a specific resource (Windows Security/System/PowerShell/Sysmon event ids), plus the output content: meaning, what to look for, related ATT&CK ids. Distinguishes itself from siblings like lookup_cve and explain_mitre_technique by domain.

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 usage precondition that matters: 'ids are only unique within a log, so pass the log.' Examples (4625, Sysmon 10) clarify the input domain. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but sibling scope is unambiguous.

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