panelica_antivirus_get_v1_antivirus_scan_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the non-admin user restriction and hints at the return content (progress, files, threats). However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only (implied by GET, but not stated), error conditions (e.g., invalid scan ID, unauthorized), or pagination/limits. The description adds some value beyond the HTTP method but is not comprehensive.

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 concise: two sentences and a line with HTTP method and category. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The HTTP method line is somewhat redundant given the tool name, but it does not detract significantly. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary text.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint. However, it lacks details on how to interpret the returned data (e.g., threat severity levels), error scenarios, and prerequisites (e.g., a scan must have been initiated). It is adequate but could be more complete given the lack of output schema.

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 one required parameter 'id' with description 'Path parameter: id'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, such as expected format (e.g., UUID) or how to obtain the scan ID (likely from a previous scan initiation). Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and no extra semantics are provided.

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 returns scan details including progress, files scanned, and detected threats with file paths and severity levels. It distinguishes itself from sibling antivirus tools like panelica_antivirus_post_v1_antivirus_scan (initiates scans) and panelica_antivirus_get_v1_antivirus_status (provides status). The specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'scan details' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions a behavioral constraint (non-admin users can only view their own scans) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like panelica_antivirus_get_v1_antivirus_quarantine or panelica_antivirus_get_v1_antivirus_status. There is no directive like 'Use this to retrieve scan results after initiating a scan' or 'Do not use this to check antivirus system status.' The context is implied but not explicit.

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