Programs that start automatically

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the 300-entry cap with total/truncated signaling, the meaning of not_checked (System32/SysWOW64 files not verified), default filtering to problems only, and the admin-rights limitation on scheduled-task visibility. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent needs and the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource in the first clause, then layers constraints in a tight sequence. Every sentence carries distinct operational information (cap, not_checked, admin limitation) with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the aggregate fields (total, truncated, not_checked) and the default filtering behavior. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum values for kind and the default for problems_only. The description's 'problem entries ... set problems_only to false to see everything' largely restates that schema text, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (programs set to start automatically), and enumerates the concrete sources it covers: Run keys, Startup folder, services, scheduled tasks, Winlogon. It also states it returns signature status for both the program and its host loader, which no sibling tool could plausibly duplicate.

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?

Explicitly states the use case ('Use this to look for persistence') and cross-references the sibling list_findings for severity-triaged suspicious entries. It does not state a hard when-not-to-use rule (e.g. use list_findings instead when you only want scored findings), so guidance is clear but not fully exclusive.

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