quarantine_read_tool

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: quarantine extraction processing, text-only restriction, and the blocklist_warning signal. It does not mention error handling, non-text file behavior, or permission requirements, but the security warning adds significant transparency.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear separation of the main purpose and an important security note. However, the warning section is slightly lengthy.

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 output schema existence and context signals, the description covers the key extraction and security aspects. However, it lacks details on input validation (e.g., what happens if the file is not text) and error conditions, making it moderately complete.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score applies.

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 reads a local file with full quarantine extraction (Layer 1 + Layer 2 Q-Agent), using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like safe_read_tool by emphasizing quarantine extraction and text-only restriction.

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 a constraint ('Text files only') and a security warning, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like safe_read_tool or other quarantine tools. Usage context is implied but not differentiated.

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