disinfect_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states 'Quarantine/disinfect files' without explaining side effects (e.g., moving, deleting, restoring), reversibility, or permissions required. This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, concise sentence that communicates the core function without superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and minimal complexity.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'disinfect' or 'quarantine' entails, whether the action is applied to all currently infected files, or how results are reported (no output schema). Context from sibling tools (e.g., list_infected_files) is not leveraged to provide usage context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail since none exist.

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's purpose: to quarantine or disinfect infected files. It uses specific verbs ('Quarantine/disinfect') and a specific resource ('files detected as infected'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_infected_files or start_virus_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., running a scan first) or indicate whether it operates on all infected files or a subset. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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