clamav_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that confirm is 'Required', but it does not say whether the scan blocks, how long it runs, what is scanned by default, or what side effects occur.

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 short and front-loads the core action, followed by a minimal argument list and no filler. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the argument explanations are too under-specified to be fully useful.

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?

With no annotations and no parameter schema descriptions, an agent still cannot construct a valid payload or understand what confirmation really means semantically. The output schema may document results, but the input side and operational workflow are under-explained.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description must compensate but only says payload is 'scan options as the panel expects' – an opaque reference to the UI. It also labels confirm 'Required', which conflicts with the schema's optional default of false and lack of a required list.

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?

States a specific action ('Start') and a concrete resource ('ClamAV scan'), so an agent can immediately identify this as the initiation tool. It also distinguishes itself naturally from sibling tools like clamav_status and clamav_kill.

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 verb 'Start' and the confirmation argument imply this is the tool to use when initiating a scan. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer boundaries from sibling names.

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