apmx_injection_info

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 mentions 'wraps handle correlation with parameter decoding', which gives insight into internal processing. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or performance impacts. For a read-only analysis tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 that are front-loaded with the primary action and output, followed by a brief elaboration on the handling. No redundant or unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that the schema fully documents parameters and no output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It lists specific fields (target PID, process name, shellcode sizes, etc.) and explains the forensic-friendly nature. Missing details about error conditions or limitations, but overall complete for its complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema-provided parameter descriptions (file_path and process_index). Both parameters are already well-documented in the schema, so the description's added value is minimal.

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 extracts injection chain details from APMX captures and lists specific outputs (target PID, process name, shellcode sizes, etc.). It is specific about the resource and verb, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apmx_calls_around or apmx_get_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for injection chain details but does not mention preconditions, exclusions, or comparisons with other apmx tools. Lack of context signals such as 'use if you need injection-specific data' leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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