build_timeline

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It states outputs are sorted and deduplicated events, but does not disclose error handling, performance implications, prerequisites, or whether the tool is read-only. For a forensic tool, more detail on limitations or safety would be beneficial.

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 two sentences with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and sources, and concludes with the purpose and outcome. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the input (sources and auto-detection) but does not describe the return format or field details. For a complex forensic tool, missing output structure details reduces completeness for an agent.

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%, and parameter descriptions in the schema are clear. The description adds minimal insight beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'auto-detect common paths' is already in schema). Thus, the description provides marginal added value for parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Build comprehensive forensic timeline from multiple artifact sources.' It specifies the verb (build), resource (timeline), and the answer it provides ('What happened and when?'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that parse individual artifacts, making the purpose highly specific.

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 for cross-artifact analysis, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given sibling tools that parse single sources (e.g., disk_parse_mft), the description could clarify that this tool is for combining sources, but it does not explicitly exclude single-source scenarios.

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