List file activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful context about the content of returned records (file name/size, event type, process, device, user, computer) and the scope of data (across the network). It does not mention potential edge cases like empty results, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 two sentences and about 40 words, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every clause adds information: the first sentence defines the data scope, and the second lists the filter options. No redundant words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (file name/size, event type, process, device, user, computer) and all the supported filter dimensions (event type, file extension/group, block status, device instance path, time period, computer, group, domain). This gives an agent a complete picture of what the tool returns and how to narrow it down.

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?

All 13 parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description simply summarizes the filter categories (event type, extension, block status, etc.) but does not add details beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 tool retrieves file activities with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource, and enumerates the event types (create, open, modify, delete, rename, move, copy, read). It also lists the data fields returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dcm_device_audit_list and dcm_file_shadow_list.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need file activity events across the network) and is clear on the scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the highest bar for explicit exclusions.

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