Select a forensic category to retrieve the registry keys most relevant to investigations, covering persistence, services, network, USB, user activity, and system info.
List forensically important registry keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List' (implying read-only) but does not clarify whether it accesses a live system or forensic image, permission requirements, or output format (e.g., key paths, timestamps, values).
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 very short (one sentence) but omits essential details about the parameter and output. While front-loaded and efficient, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned (e.g., list of key paths or full key details). It does not. The category parameter is also unexplained. For a single-parameter tool, this is inadequate.
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 has 0% description coverage for the category parameter, and the tool description does not mention it or explain what each enum value returns. The agent only sees the enum labels, which lack semantic clarity beyond their names.
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 'List forensically important registry keys' indicates a verb and resource but fails to define what qualifies as 'important' or what the output contains (e.g., key names, paths, values). It does not mention the category parameter, leaving scope ambiguous.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like registry_get_network, registry_get_persistence, or registry_search. The agent is left to infer the use case without any contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.