list_infected_files

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose behavior such as whether a scan must be run first or what happens if no infected files exist.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and resource. No unnecessary words, perfect for a tool with no parameters.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what it does. It could mention the return format (e.g., file paths), but the name and description are enough for an agent to correctly call this tool in most scenarios.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context regarding what is listed (ClamAV infected files) beyond the empty input schema, which is sufficient for invocation.

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' with a clear resource ('files detected as infected by ClamAV'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_virus_scan and disinfect_files by focusing on the read-only listing aspect.

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 usage context is implied: use this to view the results of a ClamAV scan. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_virus_scan_status or disinfect_files, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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