listdlls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses provenance ('Wraps Sysinternals ListDLLs'), which implies Windows-only, elevated-privilege, read-only behavior, and it documents the return shape. It stops short of stating admin requirements, performance cost on busy hosts, or that some DLLs may be inaccessible without privileges.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose, then provenance, then return format — no filler. Slightly redundant to restate the return format inline when an output schema exists, but the total length is short and scannable.

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 section is largely duplicative rather than additive. The definition still omits the most decision-relevant context for an agent: that this is Windows/Sysinternals-specific, privilege needs, and when to prefer listdlls_by_pid over the full sweep.

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% and the single 'verified' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the (-v) flag mapping. The description adds nothing about the parameter and its phrase 'with version info' does not clarify how it relates to the 'verified' filter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — 'List all loaded DLLs across all processes with version info' — and the phrase 'across all processes' implicitly separates it from the per-process sibling. However, it never names listdlls_by_pid, so the differentiation must be inferred from sibling names alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope phrase 'across all processes', which suggests this is the whole-system variant as opposed to a PID-scoped call. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative such as listdlls_by_pid.

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