apmx_injection_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains that it wraps handle correlation with parameter decoding, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The description is adequate but leaves gaps about safety and limitations.

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 long, with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately lists outputs. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for an AI 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 the schema coverage (100%) and lack of output schema, the description explains the output well. However, it omits context about when to use this tool—for example, it might require a previously parsed APMX file (sibling apmx_parse). This gap prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (file_path and process_index), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it extracts enriched injection chain details from APMX captures, listing specific outputs (target PID, process name, shellcode size, etc.) and indicating it provides a forensic-friendly summary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover other aspects like API analysis or pattern detection.

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 forensics of injection chains but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like apmx_correlate_handles or apmx_get_call_details. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., parsing the capture first) or when not to use it.

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