generate_implant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the implant is saved to disk and is session-mode, but does not detail side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or what happens upon successful generation. The information is minimal but not contradictory.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a bullet-like format to list parameter hints efficiently. While it could be slightly more structured, it wastes no sentences and is easy to parse.

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?

Given 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error cases, or behaviors for undocumented parameters, and provides no context about the build process or resulting file characteristics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only covers three parameters (`fmt`, `protocol`, `c2_host`) out of ten, providing acceptable values but missing semantics for `os`, `arch`, `name`, `c2_port`, `evasion`, `obfuscate`, `run_at_load`. Many parameters remain unexplained, making it insufficient.

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's purpose: building a session-mode implant (interactive callback) and saving it to disk. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_beacon' and 'regenerate_implant' by specifying session-mode, but does not explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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 provides example valid values for `fmt`, `protocol`, and `c2_host`, offering some usage guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and does not compare with sibling tools like 'generate_beacon'.

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