mac_investigate_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'correlates evidence' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as output format, side effects, read-only nature, or whether it modifies artifacts. The agent lacks critical information for safe invocation.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists event types. Efficient and clear.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what 'correlates evidence' means in practice, what the return value contains, or how time_window_hours is used. A deep investigation tool should provide richer behavioral context.

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 100%, but the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and types. It lists event types in the description, but the schema already enumerates them via enum. No additional syntax, formatting, or constraints provided.

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?

Description clearly states it performs deep investigation of specific event types and correlates evidence across multiple artifacts. The listed event types provide concrete scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single data sources (e.g., mac_unified_logs_search) by describing cross-artifact correlation.

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 use when deep correlation is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., for single-source queries, use more specific tools). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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