roboshadow_get_antivirus_report_by_device

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 conveys that the operation is a read-only list and defines the data scope, but it does not mention pagination behavior, potential for partial/incomplete results, output format, or any other operational traits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence contains the core action and scope with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though mentioning 'firewall/protection' alongside 'antivirus' makes it slightly broader than the tool name suggests.

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 output schema and a large sibling group, the definition is thin: it does not clarify how this report relates to get_device_antivirus, get_firewall_report, or get_antivirus_summary, nor does it describe the paginated response behavior needed to retrieve all devices. The minimal params are covered, but the surrounding context is insufficient.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for organisationId, page, and itemsPerPage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries the necessary semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('antivirus/firewall/protection status'), and scopes it to every device in the organisation. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as roboshadow_get_device_antivirus or roboshadow_get_antivirus_summary.

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 phrase 'for every device in the organisation' implies this is the org-wide antivirus/security status report, which gives some usage context. However, no alternative tools are named and no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer routing among the large sibling set.

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