signalgrid_xprotect_status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact return structure (dict with three keys), the format of version strings, and the 'unavailable: <reason>' fallback. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured: purpose first, then diagnostic context, then return format. The return section is slightly verbose but informative. No filler sentences.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the meaning of stale definitions, and potential root cause. The output schema further supports completeness, and the description aligns with sibling tool scope.

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 input schema already fully defines usage. Baseline for 0 params is 4; no further parameter explanation is necessary.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: reporting versions of Apple's anti-malware components (XProtect definitions, Remediator, MRT). It names specific resources and is distinct from sibling tools like signalgrid_installed_apps or signalgrid_software_updates.

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 provides clear context on when this tool is relevant, noting that stale definitions indicate missing security updates and points to a likely cause (ConfigDataInstall disabled). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the resource-specificity makes the intended use obvious among siblings.

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