disk_parse_mft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions comparing timestamps and detection, but does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it requires specific privileges, or any side effects. The behavior is partially clear but lacks explicit safety or requirement details.

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 concise at three sentences. It front-loads the primary function, then explains the key comparison and the questions it answers. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It covers the main detection goal but does not describe the output format (e.g., list of entries with fields) or explain how filters like file_path_filter and time_range work contextually. While the schema covers details, the description lacks an overview of what the agent will receive.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking timestomping detection to certain parameters, but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema. The schema already provides good descriptions for each parameter.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: parsing the $MFT file for file metadata and timestomping detection. It uses specific verbs like 'Parse' and 'Compares', and identifies the unique resource ($MFT). Among sibling disk_parse_* tools, this is distinctly about MFT parsing, making its role clear.

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 usage for timestomping detection and answering file creation time queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other forensics tools). There is no mention of when not to use it or comparison with other MFT parsers. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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