build_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions auto-detection of paths, sorting, and deduplication, but does not disclose potential limitations such as performance considerations, memory usage, or what happens when artifacts are missing. The description is adequate but lacks richness.

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 three sentences long, each providing essential information: what the tool does, the output characteristics, and the core question it answers. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and sources adequately. It does not explain the return format or processing limits, but for basic use it is sufficient. Slightly incomplete for advanced scenarios.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it repeats the concept of auto-detection and override paths but provides no additional semantic context for parameters.

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 the verb 'build' and the resource 'forensic timeline', lists specific artifact sources (MFT, USN, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools that parse individual artifacts. It also describes the output characteristics (sorted, deduplicated) and the overarching question it answers ('What happened and when?').

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 this tool is for a unified chronological view, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., individual parsers like disk_parse_mft). There are no usage exclusions or explicit comparisons to sibling tools.

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