mimikatz_process_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether elevated privileges are required, what 'security context' precisely includes, or whether any side effects or restrictions apply.

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 contains no filler and communicates the essential action and scope immediately. 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the short description is minimally viable but leaves ambiguity around the return format and the exact meaning of 'security context.' It is enough to attempt a call, but not enough to fully set expectations for the result.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 and resource: it lists running processes and adds a distinguishing qualifier, 'with security context.' Among siblings that focus on credentials, Kerberos tickets, and vault data, this clearly identifies a process enumeration tool.

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 tool instead of the many credential-focused siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The intended role within a Mimikatz workflow is left entirely to inference.

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