apmx_detect_patterns

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses analysis behavior, use of MITRE ATT&CK, and outputs (risk level, timeline). Does not mention side effects (likely read-only) or performance, but is sufficient for a stateless analysis tool. No contradictions.

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 sentences with front-loaded main action, followed by context on MITRE and output. Every sentence adds value; no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, description adequately describes output (risk level, suspicious call timeline). Complexity is low with two parameters, one required. Context is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% (both parameters described). Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema (file_path and process_index descriptions are clear). Baseline 3 assigned as schema carries the load.

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?

Description clearly states the tool detects injection/evasion/persistence patterns in APMX captured API calls, uses MITRE ATT&CK IDs, and returns risk level and timeline. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like api_detect_patterns (API-focused) and apmx_get_calls (raw calls).

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?

Description implies use for analyzing APMX captures for known attack patterns but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., apmx_injection_info for injection-only analysis, api_detect_patterns for API patterns). Lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite context.

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