mimikatz_kerberos_golden

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and result but omits that this forges a credential — a high-impact, detectable offensive action requiring domain-equivalent privileges — and that it leaves a persistent backdoor. 'Create' implies mutation, but the operational gravity and security posture are undisclosed.

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, nine-word sentence with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 7-parameter offensive tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is inadequate. It doesn't describe expected results (the ticket file written to output), the dependence on a prior KRBTGT hash acquisition step, or the safety implications, leaving an agent unable to gauge impact before invoking.

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 each of the seven parameters (domain, sid, krbtgt_hash, user, id, groups, output) is already self-explanatory with sensible defaults documented. The description adds no parameter information, but under full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource ('a Golden Ticket') with its intent ('persistent domain access'). The term 'Golden' inherently distinguishes it from the sibling mimikatz_kerberos_silver tool, though the description doesn't explicitly name that alternative.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like mimikatz_kerberos_silver (service tickets), mimikatz_kerberos_ptt (injecting an existing ticket), or prerequisites such as needing an already-obtained KRBTGT hash via dcsync. The phrase 'for persistent domain access' implies a persistence scenario but offers no exclusions, preconditions, or alternative routing.

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