clamav_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions GET, which suggests a read-only operation, but also says 'start a scan,' implying side effects. It never states whether calling this endpoint mutates state or what side effects, if any, 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 text is short, but it is ambiguous rather than concise. The slash-joined 'status / start a scan' requires unpacking, and key operational details are missing. This reads as under-specification, which the calibration distinguishes from effective conciseness.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be described, the central question of whether this endpoint starts a scan is left unresolved. The presence of clamav_scan and clamav_kill siblings makes this ambiguity material. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the current description.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. There are no parameter semantics the description needs to add, and no ambiguity exists around argument meanings.

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 reads 'ClamAV status / start a scan (GET),' which combines two possible actions but never states whether this tool returns status, starts a scan, or both. 'ClamAV status' largely restates the tool name, while the slash introduces ambiguity. Since a sibling clamav_scan exists, the description does not clarify what this tool uniquely does.

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 usage context or alternative routing is provided. The phrase 'start a scan' overlaps with the sibling tool clamav_scan and could mislead an agent into choosing this tool for scan-triggering behavior when another tool may be the intended one.

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