frida_win_amsi_bypass

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It explains the mechanism (overwrite to return E_INVALIDARG) and that it's a standard bypass, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., detection risk, process stability impact, requirement for admin rights). Transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise with no redundant words. It front-loads the key action and platform, then provides a brief mechanism and a single-line parameter definition. Every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, mechanism, and parameter. It could mention whether the patch is reversible or if any dependencies exist, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description explicitly defines the 'target' parameter as a process name or pid, adding meaning beyond the schema's simple title. Since the schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), this explanation compensates well. It is clear and sufficient.

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's purpose: patching AmsiScanBuffer to bypass AMSI scanning. It specifies the platform ([Windows]) and the function targeted, making it distinct from sibling tools. The description is specific, with a clear verb (Patch) and resource (AmsiScanBuffer).

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 usage for AMSI bypass on Windows but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_win_etw_bypass). No when-not or comparison to sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent to infer context. Guidance is minimal.

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