decrypt_rdp

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

The description discloses a key limitation (does not guarantee full TLS/CredSSP decryption) and mentions NLA/TLS detection and handshake hints. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention potential side effects, required permissions, or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences, immediately states the main function, and includes the critical caveat. No wasted words.

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?

Despite a complex 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits return format, interpretation of results, and prerequisites (e.g., loaded PCAP). The description covers the basic purpose but is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by indicating session_id and pcap_path are alternative sources, and that NTLM-related parameters are used for decryption correlation, adding value beyond the schema.

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 analyzes RDP sessions and correlates them with NTLM evidence, with a specific caveat about decryption limitations. This distinguishes it from siblings like extract_ntlm_hashes and analyze_rdp_attack_chain.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_rdp_attack_chain or extract_ntlm_hashes. The description only states inputs, not the appropriate usage context or prerequisites.

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