bof_mssql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists commands and syntax (e.g., 'mssql clr' for CLR execution, 'mssql xpcmd' for command execution) but does not mention side effects, required permissions, destructiveness, or safety concerns. For a tool that can execute system commands, this is a significant gap.

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 long and detailed, listing many subcommands in a list format. It is front-loaded with the general purpose but becomes verbose. While the length is justified by the tool's complexity, it could be more structured (e.g., tables or grouping) to improve readability.

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 tool's complexity (many subcommands) and the simple input schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of available commands and their syntax. However, it lacks information about prerequisites, permissions, and potential side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral gaps remain.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (agent_id, command, args) with 0% description coverage individually. The description compensates by listing over 20 subcommands that likely correspond to the 'command' parameter, with syntax examples (e.g., 'mssql query <server> <query>'). It adds meaning but does not explicitly map parameters to schema fields.

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 'MSSQL-BOF: Microsoft SQL Server enumeration and exploitation', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It then lists many subcommands (e.g., 'mssql info', 'mssql query'), making it obvious that this tool is for MSSQL-related tasks, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bof_ad or bof_ldap.

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 implies usage for MSSQL enumeration and exploitation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or alternative tool mentions are present. The context of siblings and the name partially guide, but explicit guidelines are lacking.

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