find_persistence_paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, required privileges, or side effects. No contradictions exist.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It could be improved with structured bullet points, but it is efficient and focused.

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 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the scope but lacks workflow context (e.g., requiring environment_id from enumerate_host) and does not describe the return format.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema, listing mechanism types that are also in the enum.

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 persistence mechanisms using LOL binaries and lists specific types (cron jobs, services, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_initial_access or find_lateral_movement.

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 lists the types of persistence mechanisms, giving implicit context for when to use it, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like running enumerate_host first.

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