hec_query_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description indicates a read operation ('Query… Returns events') and mentions remediation actions. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (scrollId is present but not explained), rate limits, auth requirements, or default ordering. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core action ('Query… events') is front-loaded, followed by supported filters and return value. Every sentence adds value.

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 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it queries, filters available, and what it returns (events with remediation actions). It does not detail pagination or defaults, but for a query tool with clear schema descriptions, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so each of the 8 parameters is documented. The description merely summarizes the filter types (type, state, severity, date range, SaaS platform) without adding any new semantics or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Query Checkpoint Harmony Email security events.' It lists example event types (phishing, malware, etc.) and specifies supported filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hec_get_event (single event) and hec_search_emails (emails, not events).

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 states that the tool supports filtering by various criteria, which implies it should be used when needing filtered event queries. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., for a single event retrieval, use hec_get_event instead) or mention any alternatives. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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