privilege_escalation_peas

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Run'. It does not mention that the tool uploads and executes arbitrary base64 binaries (which could be destructive, loud, or require specific privileges), nor does it describe the side effects or resource impact.

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 appropriately concise: a clear purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter list. Every line adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main intent.

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?

For a tool that executes arbitrary code on a target, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, behavior expectations, and output details. No annotations or output schema exist to compensate, and the sibling list offers similar actions without differentiators, so the agent is left without enough context to select and invoke it safely.

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 adds meaningful semantics for all parameters beyond the schema's bare titles. It specifies agent_id as 'Mythic agent ID', os_type as 'linux' or 'windows', peas_base64 as the encoded binary, and mode as 'quiet' or 'full'. However, it stops short of explaining what quiet vs full behavior entails, so not a perfect score.

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 function: 'Run linPEAS or winPEAS on the target agent for privilege escalation discovery.' This is a specific verb-resource-goal combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_shell_command or execute_mimikatz.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions the purpose 'for privilege escalation discovery', it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where other tools (e.g., run_shell_command) might be more appropriate.

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