disk_parse_srum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates what data is extracted but does not state whether the operation is read-only, mentions system privileges needed, or describes side effects. Given it is a forensic tool, likely read-only, but this is not confirmed.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence defines the action and data extracted, the second provides practical example questions. No unnecessary words or 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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a good high-level overview but omits details about the output format, error handling, or performance characteristics. It sufficiently describes the tool's purpose but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaningful context about what queries can be answered (e.g., 'How long did this program run?') but does not elaborate on parameter semantics or usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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 parses SRUDB.dat for application resource usage like CPU time and network activity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., disk_parse_mft, disk_parse_prefetch) by focusing on SRUM data, and provides specific example questions it answers.

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 usage context is implied but not explicit. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, and does not mention prerequisites or system requirements. However, the domain specificity (SRUM parsing) makes the intended use fairly clear.

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