scan_drivers

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states what the tool does but does not cover side effects (e.g., network calls, quotas), error handling, or what happens when no drivers match. The description is functional but lacks transparency about behavior beyond the listed modes.

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 listing capabilities, which is concise and front-loaded. It avoids redundancy with the schema. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate usage guidance) but is efficient for its length.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description lacks important context. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., results format, empty results handling), how to choose between modes, or any side effects. For a tool with multiple modes and dependencies, this is insufficient for complete understanding.

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%, and parameter descriptions are already in the schema. The description repeats the mode options but does not add extra meaning (e.g., format requirements, relation between parameters). For example, it doesn't clarify when target_edr is needed (only for byovd_candidates mode). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value.

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 scans and analyzes drivers against the LOLDrivers database, listing specific operations like hash lookup, name lookup, BYOVD candidates, certificate checking, and vulnerable driver matching. It uses a specific verb ('scan and analyze') and identifies the resource (drivers vs LOLDrivers), making it distinct from sibling tools which focus on other domains.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, decision criteria for choosing a mode, or exclusions (e.g., 'use this for driver-specific checks; for general binary analysis, see analyze_binary'). The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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