windows_search_parse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the SIDR version, the PropertyStore fallback when SIDR is absent, case-insensitive AND-combined text filtering, inclusive UTC time bounds mapped to specific fields, and the caveat that incomplete zero results are not conclusive.

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?

Four sentences deliver a high density of useful information with no filler. The most important scoping and output facts come first, followed by filter, time, and reliability caveats.

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?

For a 14-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is strong: it covers inputs, outputs, fallback behavior, filter semantics, time semantics, and result reliability. It does not describe the exact output shape or error conditions, but an agent has enough to select and invoke 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 coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates for several otherwise unexplained parameters: it defines text filter behavior (case-insensitive substring AND), time semantics (inclusive UTC), and the fields each time bound applies to. Common control parameters like limit, offset, and timeout are left to their schema defaults, but the core forensic parameters are clarified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Parse an explicit Windows Search EDB using SIDR 0.9.2.' It also names the report types returned (file, internet history, activity history), which distinguishes it from sibling parsers aimed at other artifacts such as Prefetch, AMCache, or SRUM.

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?

It clearly scopes usage to explicit Windows Search EDB files and explains the SIDR dependency with a fallback. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the artifact-specific wording gives enough contextual guidance.

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