Memory Shell Detector MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool does (downloads files) and mentions remote download capability via SSH, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like: where files are downloaded from (source URL/repository), authentication requirements for the download source, network dependencies, error handling, or what happens if files already exist. The description adds some context about being a prerequisite step but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, lists the specific files, explains the prerequisite nature, then details parameters. While slightly longer due to parameter explanations, every sentence adds value. The structure is logical with clear sections for tool purpose and parameter semantics.

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 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does an excellent job explaining parameter semantics. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. The description covers the prerequisite relationship to sibling tools. The main gap is lack of behavioral details about download source and error conditions, but overall it's quite complete for a download tool with complex parameter options.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It explains each parameter's purpose, default behaviors, and fallback mechanisms (environment variables, system temp directory). The description adds substantial value beyond the bare schema by clarifying that tools_dir defaults to TOOLS_DIR env var then system temp, and that SSH parameters have corresponding environment variable fallbacks.

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 specific action ('下载' - download) and resources ('Java 内存马检测工具包' - Java memory shell detection toolkit), explicitly naming the two JAR files to be downloaded. It distinguishes this as a prerequisite step for subsequent scanning/analysis operations, making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like scan_process or remove_memory_shell.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: '这是使用内存马检测功能的前置步骤，下载完成后才能执行后续的扫描和分析操作' (This is a prerequisite step for using memory shell detection functionality; subsequent scanning and analysis operations can only be performed after download is complete). This provides clear guidance that this must be used before tools like scan_process or remove_memory_shell.

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