mimikatz_custom

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety-relevant behavior, but it only says commands are executed. It does not mention that arbitrary Mimikatz commands can dump credentials, require privileges, or have significant side effects.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It earns conciseness points, but 'custom' remains vague and could have been clarified without much extra length.

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 an arbitrary command-execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits usage role, command syntax examples, output behavior, and risk/privilege prerequisites.

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 already fully describes the 'commands' parameter as an array of strings with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description names a clear action ('Execute') and object ('custom Mimikatz commands'), and 'custom' separates it from the fixed-purpose sibling tools. It does not fully define what 'custom' entails, but it is not a tautology.

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 guidance on when to use this generic tool instead of the many specific siblings (e.g., mimikatz_sekurlsa_logonpasswords). The word 'custom' implies a fallback role, but the intended selection criteria are left to inference.

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