memory_detect_rootkit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only analysis', which clarifies this is a non-destructive inspection tool. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid inputs. The return fields are listed but not explained.

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 sized at three sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details and behavioral characteristics. While efficient, the second sentence could be slightly more concise by combining plugin information with return values.

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 with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose, methods, and read-only nature, but lacks output format details, error handling information, and usage guidelines. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain the return structure more thoroughly.

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 both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 specific action ('Check for rootkits'), methods ('via syscall table tampering and hidden kernel modules'), and tools used ('Runs linux_check_syscall and linux_hidden_modules plugins'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on memory-based rootkit detection rather than network, web application, or other security testing functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions specific plugins, it doesn't indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred over other memory analysis tools like 'volatility_linux' or 'volatility_windows', nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations beyond the required parameters.

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