decrypt_webshell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses supported cipher types (AES, AES+XOR, XOR) and the purpose, which adds value. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the key is missing or wrong, or any prerequisites like a loaded session, so transparency is incomplete.

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 extremely concise, with two clear sentences. It leads with the primary purpose, lists supported variants, and then gives usage conditions. Every sentence contributes, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core purpose and when to use it, but omits details about return format, error handling (e.g., missing key), and prerequisites like session state. Given the moderate complexity, some 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond mentioning the supported webshell types, which loosely relates to the tool_type parameter but does not provide additional syntax or constraints. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 decrypts webshell traffic to reveal attacker commands, naming specific webshell tools (Behinder, Godzilla, AntSword). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_webshell or extract_webshell_key, which have different purposes.

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?

Explicit 'Use this when' conditions (key extracted, user provides key, want to see commands) give clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it falls short of full guidance.

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