persistence_scan

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

The description says 'scan,' which implies read-only behavior, but the annotations include destructiveHint: true, creating a contradiction. The description does not disclose any potential side effects or required permissions, and the contradiction undermines trust. Score 1 due to annotation contradiction.

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, front-loading the core action and listing specifics efficiently. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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?

The description covers what the tool does and when to use it, but with destructiveHint: true and no output schema, it should mention potential side effects or return format. Still, for a zero-parameter scan tool, it is mostly complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the description need not add parameter details, so baseline score 4 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 the tool scans for malware persistence mechanisms, listing specific types (LaunchAgents, systemd units, cron jobs, shell profile injections) and flagging high-risk patterns. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like arp_scan or port_scan.

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 explicitly says 'Essential first step when investigating a potentially compromised machine,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when NOT to use the tool or suggest alternatives, though the sibling list implies other scanning tools for different purposes.

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