evtx_attack_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states the output format (TSV lines), columns per event type, and supports filters via contains/not_contains. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or performance implications, which are relevant for a summary tool.

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 a single focused paragraph, listing event types and their columns concisely. No verbose or redundant information; every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the TSV columns per event type. It covers the primary use case and major parameters. Missing details like ordering or behavior with invalid inputs, but overall sufficient for effective use.

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 60%: contains, not_contains, and limit have descriptions; evtx_path and event_type lack descriptions in the schema. The description adds meaning for event_type by listing available types and output columns, but does not describe evtx_path or the limit parameter beyond its default.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a 'compact TSV summary of security events for rapid triage' and lists each event type with specific columns, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like evtx_search which are more general.

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 indicates use for 'rapid triage' and mentions it 'fits entire attack chains in a single call,' implying it should be used for quick overviews rather than deep dives. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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