lookup_malapi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return content (technique associations, malware families, detection notes) and implies a non-mutating lookup. However, it does not mention edge cases like unknown APIs, matching behavior, or any data source caveats.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and result, then adds a concise use-case statement. Every sentence contributes 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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the invocation context and enumerates the return categories. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately compensates by explaining what the tool returns, though it omits error/edge-case behavior.

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 input schema already fully documents api_name with examples. The description only restates that the lookup is by name and does not add meaningful parameter semantics 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 clearly identifies the verb ('Look up'), the resource ('Windows API by name'), and the purpose ('malware behavior mapping'). It also lists specific return content, distinguishing it from sibling lookup tools like lookup_lolbas or lookup_loldriver.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for understanding what behaviors an API call indicates.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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