panelica_antivirus_get_v1_antivirus_status

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

The description discloses that only ROOT/ADMIN can access and lists the returned data. While it does not explicitly state idempotency, the HTTP method (GET) implies a read-only operation. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden adequately.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus HTTP method and category. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what data is returned and access restrictions. It could be improved by adding a response format example, but it is sufficient.

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 no parameters, and the description does not add parameter information. With 100% schema description coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns ClamAV daemon status, active threats count, quarantined files count, last scan info, and current settings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like the quarantine or scan endpoints.

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 specifies access restrictions (ROOT/ADMIN only), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this status tool versus other antivirus tools, but the context makes it clear.

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