evtx_ntlm_operational_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: counts/timestamps/event references are preserved, distributions are bounded, unknown statuses are reported honestly, and rarity is explicitly stated not to be an attack verdict. It still omits read-only/permission and performance characteristics, but the output-semantics disclosure is solid.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource and then layers the differentiating behaviors. No filler or repetition, though the phrasing is compressed enough that some clauses need unpacking.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the mutation/permission profile is trivially read-only. However, for a 19-parameter tool with thin schema documentation, the description leaves filtering and pagination semantics unexplained, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 26% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the core semantics behind order (rare-first), aggregate, and bounded distributions, but says nothing about the many filter parameters (domain, username, process, client_ip, status, event_ids) or the cursor/offset paging contract.

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 (summarize) and resource (NTLM Operational events 4021/4022/4023), plus the distinctive behavior of aggregating repeated shapes and ordering rare combinations first. It does not name a sibling tool to differentiate from (e.g. evtx_attack_summary or evtx_get_stats), but the scope is specific enough to identify the tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's specialty (NTLM operational event triage with rarity ordering), and the default order=rare_first is surfaced, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance despite many overlapping evtx_* siblings such as evtx_search and evtx_attack_summary.

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