rubeus_diamond

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requests a real TGT and modifies it, requiring the krbtgt key. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., network calls, ticket caching) or output behavior, leaving gaps.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary details but could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's function and prerequisites but omits details on return values or output format. It is adequate for understanding the main behavior but incomplete for full usage context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema adequately describes parameters. The description only adds context about the krbtgt key requirement, which is already in the schema. It does not provide additional semantic guidance beyond that.

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 clearly states the tool forges a Diamond Ticket (modified legitimate TGT), and distinguishes it from golden tickets by highlighting stealthiness. This helps the agent differentiate from siblings like rubeus_golden.

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 implies usage as a stealthier alternative to golden tickets and notes the requirement for the krbtgt key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond golden tickets.

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