psfile

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the Sysinternals wrapper (useful context) and the return shape, and 'list' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about privilege requirements, remote-access assumptions, or the EULA acceptance the tool depends on.

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?

Very tightly written and front-loaded: purpose first, wrapper note, then return format. The return-format block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which slightly dilutes conciseness.

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 read-only listing tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description supplies what the structured fields cannot: identity of the underlying utility and the response shape. Only operational prerequisites (privileges, EULA) are missing.

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 accept_eula and path_filter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering syntax, matching semantics, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 files opened by remote systems via network shares') and identifies the underlying Sysinternals utility, making the scope clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like handle64 or psfile_close, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the resource framing is precise.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative sibling psfile_close or when this beats handle64. The agent is told what it is but not when to choose it.

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