investigate_execution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool correlates multiple artifacts and provides answers, but does not mention limitations such as handling of missing artifacts, performance implications, or required privileges. The parameter description notes auto-detection of paths, adding some transparency.

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, using multiple short sentences that each add value: it states the tool is comprehensive, specifies correlated artifacts, answers key questions, and mentions outputs (confidence scoring, timeline). No filler 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?

Given the complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose, artifacts, and questions. It lacks details on output format or behavior when artifacts are missing, but is reasonably complete for a tool with strong schema descriptions.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema descriptions; it focuses on overall purpose. Parameters are well-documented in the schema, so no further elaboration needed.

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's purpose: comprehensive execution analysis by correlating Prefetch, Amcache, and SRUM. It answers specific questions (whether executed, when, duration) and provides unified timeline and confidence scoring. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that parse individual artifacts.

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 execution investigation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like disk_parse_prefetch or evtx_search. No when-not or alternatives are given, leaving some ambiguity.

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