investigate_execution

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the correlation approach and outputs (confidence scoring, timeline) but does not mention limitations like missing artifacts or authentication requirements.

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 three concise sentences covering purpose, questions answered, and outputs. No redundancy; front-loaded with key information.

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 tool's complexity (multi-artifact correlation) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description provides adequate context. It could mention potential issues like artifact unavailability but is largely complete.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the tool's overall purpose but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 to prove/disprove binary execution, including timing and duration. It distinguishes itself from artifact-specific siblings like disk_parse_prefetch.

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 implicitly indicates usage for execution analysis but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., using individual artifact parsers) or exclude scenarios. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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