get_virus_scan_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Check the status' and does not explain what happens if no scan is running, what statuses can be returned, or whether the tool returns a simple boolean or a detailed report. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely has polling semantics.

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 directly states the purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It fails to explain return values, possible states, or prerequisites (e.g., a scan must have been started via start_virus_scan). This leaves the agent uncertain about how to interpret the tool's response.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100% (empty schema). The description adds context by clarifying the operation's purpose, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no parameter details are needed.

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 function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a running virus scan'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like start_virus_scan and list_infected_files by focusing on status retrieval.

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 when to use this tool (when a virus scan is running and you want its status), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. For example, it doesn't say 'use this after starting a scan' or contrast with list_infected_files, which might list results but not the scan status.

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