user_parse_lnk_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool parses files and extracts certain data, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., performance for large directories), error handling, or required permissions. The behavioral traits are partially disclosed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus two example questions. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary content.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and typical questions. It clarifies the tool's role in forensic analysis. Minor gaps: it does not mention output format or relationships between parameters (e.g., 'recent_only' requires user profile path), but the schema partly addresses this.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters. The tool description adds high-level context (e.g., 'What files did the user access recently?') but does not elaborate on parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 parses Windows shortcut (.lnk) files to extract target paths, access times, and volume information. It answers specific investigative questions, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that parse other file types or focus on different 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 provides context by listing example questions it answers, implying when to use it (when investigating recent file access or original locations). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like 'user_parse_shellbags', leaving room for ambiguity.

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