mac_build_timeline

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

No annotations exist, and the description only mentions correlation without explaining behavioral traits such as deduplication, output format, or whether it is read-only. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and how results are structured.

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 only two sentences, with the purpose stated clearly in the first. No redundant information or unnecessary details.

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 complexity of correlating multiple sources and the lack of output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how results are presented, performance implications, or prerequisites. More detail is needed for effective use.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about correlating events but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('unified timeline'), and lists the types of artifacts it correlates. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single artifact types.

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 the tool is for building a combined timeline, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., using individual artifact tools). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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