lookup_hijacklib

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a read-only lookup and describes the output fields, but it does not mention exact-match behavior, case sensitivity, or what happens when no candidates are found.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The main action and query types are front-loaded, and the return details are concise.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient operational context: what to query, what is returned, and the MITRE technique mapping. A small gap is the lack of an explicit sibling alternative for listing all hijack libraries.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description and examples. The tool description reinforces that 'query' accepts a DLL name or executable name but adds little beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up'), identifies the resource ('DLL hijacking candidates'), and states the query types ('DLL name or executable'). It also names the return content (vulnerable executables, hijack type, expected DLL locations), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_hijacklibs.

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?

It gives a clear use context: 'Use for T1574.001/T1574.002 detection engineering.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the intended scenario is clear.

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