aga_quarantine_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'forensic capture status' entails. The mention of '(Claim 5)' is unexplained and doesn't add meaningful behavioral context.

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 brief but includes an unexplained element '(Claim 5)' that doesn't earn its place. The core purpose is stated efficiently in the first clause, but the parenthetical adds noise without clear value. A single clear sentence would be more effective.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'quarantine state' means in this context, what format the response takes, or how 'forensic capture status' relates to other tools. The unexplained '(Claim 5)' further reduces completeness. More context about the return values and system behavior is needed.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool retrieves rather than what it accepts. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 tool's purpose with the verb 'Get' and specifies the resources: 'quarantine state and forensic capture status'. It distinguishes this as a retrieval operation among siblings that include creation, delegation, and verification tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read-only siblings like 'aga_get_chain' or 'aga_get_portal_state'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for checking quarantine status, or relate it to other tools like 'aga_start_monitoring' or 'aga_trigger_measurement'. The parenthetical '(Claim 5)' is cryptic and doesn't offer practical usage instructions.

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