lookup_lolrmm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by stating what the lookup returns: executable names, network artifacts, registry artifacts, and known threat actor abuse. It does not cover output format, exact-match behavior, or error conditions, but the disclosed return categories are meaningful and beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently lists return categories and the detection use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and why it matters. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether the name must be exact or by referencing sibling list_lolrmm, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already fully documents the single tool_name parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating that the lookup is by name, which keeps this at the baseline.

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 and resource: 'Look up a Remote Monitoring & Management (RMM) tool by name.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_lolrmm and other lookup_* tools by naming the RMM scope and the specific artifact categories returned.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Essential for T1219 remote access tool abuse detection.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to list_lolrmm for enumeration or other lookup_lol* tools for different LOL resources.

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