winops_evtlog_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the exact return format (success, channels, count) and an example call, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with the purpose in the first sentence followed by a clear return format block and a simple example. Every sentence contributes value, and the formatting is easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity—no parameters, an output schema, and annotations—the description adequately covers its behavior. The return format is specified, and the example clarifies invocation. The description is complete for an agent to select and use the tool.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. It also provides the return format to help the agent understand the output.

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 'List all available Windows Event Log channels,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_evtlog_clear, winops_evtlog_query, and winops_evtlog_export, which perform different operations.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for enumerating event log channels, which is clear given the sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as winops_evtlog_query for querying events within a channel.

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