hayabusa_config_critical_systems

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and thoroughly discloses the interactive yes/no prompt issue, the resulting timeout behavior, and the interpretation of 'prompt_interrupted' and absent category fields. This is excellent transparency for a tool with hidden side effects.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured: purpose first, then detection method, then behavioral caveat, then parameters. Every sentence adds value, though the interactive prompt explanation could be slightly condensed. Still, it earns its length.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of the interactive prompt issue, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, detection logic, behavioral edge cases, and parameter details. It is fully sufficient for an AI to invoke 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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description explains both parameters: 'target' as a path to .evtx file/directory, and 'max_hosts' with default 200. This adds meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema, though it could specify valid file types or directory structure.

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 finds domain controllers and file servers from .evtx logs, with specific detection methods (EID 4768 for DCs, EID 5145 for file servers). The verb 'find' and resource 'critical systems' are specific and distinct from siblings like 'hayabusa_search' or 'scan_evtx'.

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 explains the tool's purpose and highlights a critical behavioral difference (interactive prompt, timeout) compared to 'other tools here'. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI to decide.

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