find_execution_proxy

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

No annotations provided, and the description only lists technique categories. It does not disclose if the tool queries a database, is read-only, or has side effects. Lacks behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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?

Single sentence with front-loaded purpose. Every word contributes to describing the tool's function. No 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?

No output schema and no description of return value format or structure. For a search tool, agents need to know what results look like (e.g., list of techniques with metadata). The description is incomplete.

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 no extra meaning beyond the enum values and parameter descriptions already in 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 finds execution proxy techniques and lists specific categories (signed binary proxy execution, compile-and-execute, script hosts, WMI execution, MMC snap-in abuse), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_wmi_abuse or find_com_abuse.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Given many sibling find tools, the description does not provide context for selection, e.g., when to use this over find_wmi_abuse or find_native_crypto.

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