security_diamonize_quarantineNOT IMPLEMENTED — returns an error and isolates NOTHING. The Diamonize engine exposes no quarantine operation; a flagged target is left untouched and must be handled by other means.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Absolute file path or process name to record as quarantined. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | Quarantine action outcome. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses that the tool returns an error, isolates nothing, and is not implemented. This goes beyond annotations by explaining why it fails (engine exposes no quarantine operation). No contradiction with annotations; idempotentHint true is consistent with a no-op. The agent is fully informed about the tool's behavior.
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-loads the critical 'NOT IMPLEMENTED' warning, and wastes no words. Every sentence carries essential information about the non-functionality and the reason behind it. Highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a stub tool, the description is complete: it states the tool is not implemented, what it does (nothing), why (engine lacks the operation), and suggests handling the flagged target by other means. There is no missing information that an agent would need to understand the tool's current status.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'target' parameter. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but since the tool does nothing, parameter semantics are moot. The baseline score applies because the schema already documents the parameter adequately, though the description does not compensate for the fact the parameter is useless in practice.
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 is not implemented and returns an error, explicitly saying it 'isolates NOTHING.' This specifies the non-functional purpose and distinguishes it from real quarantine tools. The verb 'quarantine' in the name might imply action, but the description immediately clarifies that it does nothing.
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 says 'must be handled by other means,' implying this tool should not be used, but it does not explicitly say 'do not use this tool' or name concrete alternatives. It gives a general warning about its non-functionality but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the obvious implication that a failing tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct name and purpose within its domain (billing, engine, media, security, storage, gateway). While there is some semantic overlap (e.g., engine_maxion_status vs. engine_maxion_diagnostics), the specific functions are clear enough to avoid misselection.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use domain_entity_action (engine_maxion_activate), others use domain_action (billing_activate), and one uses just domain_status (gateway_status). The inclusion of 'lineage0' and '0' suffixes adds further irregularity.
19 tools is on the higher end but justifiable for a multi-service gateway. However, several tools are stubs (NOT IMPLEMENTED), and there are multiple status/diagnostic tools per domain, which makes the set feel padded rather than tightly scoped.
The tool surface is incomplete in several areas: security lacks functional quarantine and logging, engine lacks a working deactivate, and there is no way to manage billing subscriptions or view media history beyond a simple archive list. The presence of explicitly NOT IMPLEMENTED tools highlights these gaps.