mco_bossix_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the two analysis steps and that findings are combined, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what prerequisites are needed (e.g., both debuggers connected), or how failures are handled. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 highly concise, using two sentences to convey the tool's purpose, the two analysis methods, and the return type. Every word adds value with no unnecessary filler.

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 lacks an output schema and annotations, so it must explain return values. It only says 'Returns combined findings,' which is vague and does not describe the structure or content of the findings. It also omits prerequisites such as whether both debuggers must be active. This is incomplete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 and the input schema is empty, so the schema covers 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist.

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 cross-debugger bossix detection, combining IDA Pro static scanning for anti-debug APIs and an x64dbg dynamic PEB check. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ida_scan_bossix by explicitly mentioning both debuggers and 'combined findings'.

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 phrase 'cross-debugger bossix detection' implies the tool is used when both static and dynamic analysis are needed, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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