ad_get_dc_event_logs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only contributes the inline '[READ]' marker to signal a non-mutating call. It says nothing about required permissions on the domain controllers, whether event-log access can fail or be slow, or how much data is scanned by default.

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 category and [READ] tags are front-loaded and the text is a single efficient sentence. But brevity here comes from under-specification rather than discipline, so it earns no more than an adequate mark.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Even so, for a diagnostics tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the definition leaves too much for the agent to guess before calling it correctly.

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 0% for four parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Names like 'hours', 'limit', and 'log_name' are partly self-explanatory, but there is no clarification of the time-window semantics, the default 'Directory Service' log, or what 'correlation_id' is used for.

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 verb ('Consultar') and a resource ('eventos ... dos controladores'), and the bracketed category tags help place it in the 'Replication, Health & Diagnostics' area. However, 'eventos relevantes' is vague about what is actually retrieved, and the description never distinguishes this from adjacent siblings like ad_get_replication_failures, ad_get_dc_services_status, or ad_get_directory_health.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the other diagnostics tools in the family, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The category tag only implies a general domain (health/diagnostics), leaving the agent to infer the scenario.

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