memory_get_command_history

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions using 'Rust cmdscan' and Vol3, but doesn't clarify output format, filtering behavior (e.g., include_benign default), or any side effects. The phrase 'attacker commands' suggests filtering, but the parameter behavior is not 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and add implementation context without redundancy.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description lacks critical context about output structure, filtering, and usage boundaries. It is too brief to fully guide an agent, especially with three parameters and no example usage.

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 schema covers pid and image_path, but not include_benign. The description's focus on 'attacker commands' implies the default filtering, adding some semantic meaning. Yet it doesn't explicitly explain the parameters or the include_benign toggle.

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 function: recovering attacker commands from cmd.exe history and process command lines. This distinct purpose differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_find_c2_connections or memory_extract_credentials.

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 the tool is for extracting command history from memory dumps, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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