autorunsc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it falls short: it doesn't state that the underlying Sysinternals binary requires EULA acceptance on first run (only the schema hints at this), that all_users likely needs elevation, or what side effects scanning has on the host. It adds only the wrapper/CSV-parsing note.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the scope. The 'Return Format' block is redundant given an output schema exists but is brief and not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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?

The schema documents all four parameters and an output schema covers the return shape, so the description is adequate. However, for a privileged invocation of an external binary with no annotations, it omits operational prerequisites (EULA, elevated rights) that an agent would need to call it successfully.

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%, with each flag documented alongside its CLI equivalent (-h, -v, -a *), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Scan') and enumerates the resource set (startup programs, scheduled tasks, services, drivers, browser extensions), plus notes it wraps Sysinternals Autorunsc. It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling autorunsc_schedule, leaving the agent to infer the split between a one-shot scan and a scheduled one.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as autorunsc_schedule or sigcheck for signature verification calls. The use case is only implied by the operation described.

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