roboshadow_get_antivirus_threats

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists threats and includes severity/timing, but does not disclose whether it returns resolved or unresolved threats, whether permissions are required, or what the response format looks like. The read-only nature is implicit, not explicit, and no safety profile is communicated.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is an example of appropriate 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?

For a simple list tool with 3 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not clarify the meaning of 'detected' (e.g., active vs. resolved threats), nor does it mention pagination behavior (though defaults are in the schema). With no output schema, a note about the response structure would improve completeness, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.

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%, so the schema already documents page, itemsPerPage, and organisationId. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, such as the relationship between severity and pagination or any format constraints. It meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 verb (list), the resource (detected antivirus threats), and the scope (across the organisation), along with useful details (severity and detection/remediation timing). It distinguishes from device-specific tools by mentioning 'across the organisation', but does not explicitly name sibling tools or state what it is not.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as roboshadow_get_antivirus_summary or roboshadow_get_device_antivirus. The description implies an organisation-level listing, but does not state exclusions or provide a decision rule. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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