roboshadow_get_antivirus_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It leads with the read verb 'Get,' specifies the aggregation scope, and lists the exact report contents, making it clear this is a read-only summary rather than a mutating operation. It does not mention pagination or freshness, but these are unlikely to be material for this simple one-parameter report.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then presents concrete output categories without filler. Each element earns its place, and no wording is wasted.

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 one-parameter report tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential invocation and output context: what the report covers, the organisation-wide scope, and how to obtain the organisation ID via roboshadow_list_organisations. It could be stronger with explicit sibling differentiation, but an agent can still call it correctly.

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 only parameter, organisationId, is fully documented in the schema with a type and a discovery hint, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the load adequately.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get an organisation-wide antivirus summary,' and enumerates the report's contents (active-threat count, protection gaps, Defender vs third-party coverage, firewall count). It is clear and precise, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the many per-device siblings like roboshadow_get_antivirus_report_by_device.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over the many antivirus/firewall siblings in the suite. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or situations where a per-device report would be more appropriate; the 'organisation-wide' scope is only an implicit hint.

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