rubeus_klist

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only listing operation, but omits details like required permissions, potential side effects, or output format. For a list tool, the behavior is adequately implied but not fully transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: what it does and how it compares to the native command.

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 simple list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient but lacks details on output format or further behavioral context. It does not fully cover the complexity of differentiating from many sibling tools.

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 description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the existing field descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance or clarify parameter usage further.

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 lists detailed Kerberos ticket information, and distinguishes it from the native klist by noting more detail and filtering options. While it doesn't specify the exact type of tickets or differentiate from siblings like rubeus_triage, the purpose is specific and actionable.

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 for inspecting tickets in more detail than the native klist, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., for obtaining tickets vs. listing cached tickets). No exclusion or alternative contexts are provided.

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