handle64

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape, but omits key operational traits for a Sysinternals Handle64 wrapper: that it typically requires elevation, that it is a read-only enumeration of all processes, and what happens when no pattern matches.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, with supporting details kept brief. The Return Format block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but overall the text is tight and well ordered.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value explanation is not strictly needed. What is missing for a tool of this complexity is elevation/privilege expectations and any differentiation from handle64_by_pid, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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 both parameters (pattern, verbose) are already documented in the schema, including the -v flag mapping. The description adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Clear verb and resource ('List open handles and file locks on the system') plus the underlying tool it wraps. An agent knows exactly what it produces, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling handle64_by_pid, which covers the same domain with PID scoping.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (handle64_by_pid). The description implies usage only through its name and the bare statement of purpose.

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