registry_get_persistence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool gets persistence info, but does not mention read-only nature, required privileges, error handling, or what happens with multiple hives. The parameter include_microsoft_services is not explained.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, but it under-specifies the tool given 4 parameters and no schema descriptions. It could be more informative while remaining concise.

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 tool has 4 unannotated parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, parameter effects (e.g., include_microsoft_services), or how it integrates with other forensic analysis.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It mentions 'Run keys, services' but does not map to any parameter (e.g., software_hive, system_hive, ntuser_hive). Parameters are only partially inferable from 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'persistence mechanisms (Run keys, services) from registry'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like registry_get_key and registry_get_network by focusing specifically on persistence artifacts.

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 retrieving persistence mechanisms but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., registry_get_key) or mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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