evtx_correlate_logon_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add useful context: the seven-day window cap, retained row fields, and an identity caveat. However, it omits read-only status, permissions, pagination behavior, and how max_scan capping affects result completeness.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core purpose and append a relevant caveat. There is no filler, though the second sentence mixes result-shape information with an interpretive warning.

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?

For an 11-parameter forensic correlation tool with no annotations and low schema description coverage, the description is under-specified. An output schema may cover return values, but the description still leaves major usage and parameter-semantics 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?

Schema description coverage is only 36%, so the description should compensate, but it only implies the logon_id and start/end time parameters. It leaves computer, event_ids, cursor, offset, limit, max_scan, and max_chars unexplained beyond sparse schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('subject/target occurrences of one logon ID') within an explicit time window. It distinguishes itself from broad sibling searches by centering on logon-ID correlation, though it does not name alternative tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The note that matching IDs alone do not establish identity is an interpretive caveat, not routing advice or a comparison to sibling tools such as evtx_search or evtx_security_search.

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