evil_winrm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating the tool is interactive (creates a live PowerShell session), supports pass-the-hash, and lists the ports. It doesn't cover every edge case, but for a shell client it adequately discloses the key behavioral traits beyond what the schema already implies.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage context and an explicit alternative reference. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, the alternative, key ports, and output type. Given the 100% schema coverage for parameters and the presence of an explicit sibling reference, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and use 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions pass-the-hash which relates to ntlm_hash, but the schema already explains this in detail. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so no bonus is warranted.

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 is a 'WinRM shell client' that 'provides an interactive PowerShell session' on specific ports, with pass-the-hash support. It differentiates itself from the sibling crackmapexec by specifying the interactive vs. non-interactive distinction, so an agent can tell them apart without deeper analysis.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you have valid Windows credentials and WinRM is enabled (common on servers)' and routes to the alternative 'crackmapexec with winrm protocol' for non-interactive or multi-host scenarios. This is clear, actionable guidance on when to select this tool versus a sibling.

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