cme_winrm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It mentions remote command execution and credential dumping, which imply destructive potential, but it does not detail side effects, permission requirements, or system modifications. The transparency is minimal for a tool with such capabilities.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and critical details (ports). There is no superfluous information, making it easy to scan quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (20 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It omits typical use cases, dependencies (e.g., WinRM service), and expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 20 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for good coverage.

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 'Execute WinRM protocol operations. Supports remote command execution and credential dumping on hosts with WinRM enabled (ports 5985/5986)' clearly states the tool's function and scope, including specific actions and ports. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cme_smb or cme_ssh, though the protocol-specific name helps.

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 or when not to use it. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as requiring WinRM service or administrative credentials, and does not mention that sibling tools exist for other protocols.

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