find_suspicious_executables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool finds, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what operations it performs (e.g., scanning file system), or any side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or resource usage.

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 that is entirely relevant and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations. The description does not indicate what the output looks like (e.g., list of file paths, formatted report) or any performance considerations. Given the context of sibling tools, more information would help an agent decide whether to use this tool first.

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 no additional parameter information is needed. The description does not mention parameters, but the schema is already complete (empty). Per baseline guidelines, a score of 4 is appropriate for a tool with no parameters.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'executables in anomalous locations', listing specific examples like Temp dirs, user AppData, ProgramData. It differentiates from sibling tools such as check_known_malware_hashes and yara_scan, which focus on different aspects like hash lookup or signature scanning.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or how it fits into a workflow with sibling tools like check_known_malware_hashes or yara_scan.

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