find_antiforensics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the purpose and gives examples; it does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only or modified state. This is insufficient for transparency.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose, with examples listed concisely. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 description is adequate for a search tool with 3 parameters, but it does not explain the return format or output. Given no output schema, additional information about what the results contain would improve completeness. Still, it covers the core purpose well enough.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds a list of technique examples but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. 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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'anti-forensics techniques', listing specific examples (log clearing, artifact deletion, timestomping, etc.). It directly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_defense_evasion by focusing on anti-forensics.

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 the tool is for searching anti-forensics techniques, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusion criteria or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not explicitly advised.

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