user_parse_shellbags

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, requires administrative privileges, or has side effects. The output format (e.g., list of entries with timestamps) is hinted but not explicitly described. The description focuses on outcome rather than process or constraints.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a Q&A that efficiently summarizes key capabilities. No superfluous content; every sentence earns its place. It is both concise and informative.

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 forensic nature and four input parameters, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose but lacks details on output structure (e.g., fields returned, pagination) and guidance on parameter combinations. It doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter's impact or the format of timestamps. While sufficient for basic understanding, it has gaps for complex use cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual value by linking parameters (e.g., suspicious_only, path_filter) to the overall goal of identifying folder access. However, it doesn't explain parameter behavior (e.g., default behavior of path_filter) or interactions beyond what the schema provides.

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 parses ShellBags from UsrClass.dat to reveal folder navigation history. It uses a specific verb ('parse') and resource, and the Q&A format further clarifies the purpose. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the unique artifact (ShellBags) and file (UsrClass.dat) provide implicit distinction.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like user_parse_lnk_files or disk_parse_mft. It mentions 'folder navigation history' but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions. No alternatives are referenced, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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