bossix_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does specify the scan scope (PEB flags, API imports, byte patterns, RDTSC) and output (detected techniques + bypass suggestions), which provides a clear behavioral profile. However, it does not explicitly state that the scan is read-only, mention performance implications, or disclose any side effects, relying instead on the tool name to imply scanning behavior.

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 a single sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It efficiently packs the scan categories and return value without any wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential behavior and output adequately. It could add a line about what 'bossix' refers to or the expected environment, but overall it is sufficient for agent selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly omits parameter details, and with no parameters the baseline score is 4.

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 performs a comprehensive bossix scan covering PEB flags, API imports, byte patterns, and RDTSC, and specifies the return value (techniques + bypass suggestions). This is a specific verb+resource description, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ida_scan_bossix or mco_bossix_report.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention which contexts warrant this scan or contrast with related scan/report tools, leaving the agent without explicit usage direction.

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