Quarantine Scan Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It meaningfully discloses that content is never returned (a critical safety trait), that full detection always runs regardless of trust level, and the output structure (risk level, vector counts, Q-Agent observations). It stops short of stating whether the scan is strictly read-only or if any side effects occur, which a scan tool could clarify.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the parameter constraint follows, then output format and behavioral guarantee. No filler or redundancy. The critical 'WITHOUT returning content' is emphasized clearly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are handled structurally, and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, param constraint, and behavior. The notable gap is sibling selection — with 16 siblings including deep/dir scan variants, the lack of differentiation leaves an agent guessing when to pick this over deep_quarantine_scan_tool. Otherwise complete for a 2-param scan tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the key mutual-exclusivity constraint — 'Provide either url or path (not both)' — which the schema does not encode (both are marked optional with no such relationship). This is valuable semantic info beyond the schema. It does not cover the edge case of providing neither, but the either/or rule is the main added value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'detect injection vectors' without returning content. This clearly distinguishes it as a detection-only scan. However, it fails to differentiate from the many scan siblings (deep_quarantine_scan_tool, quarantine_scan_dir_tool, scan_content_tool, deep_scan_content_tool) — 'pre-flight' hints at a role but doesn't explicitly separate it.

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 'Pre-flight security scan' phrase implies use as a pre-check before other operations, and 'WITHOUT returning content' signals it's appropriate when content exposure is unwanted. But it names no alternatives or exclusions — with deep and directory scan variants available, an agent has no explicit guidance on choosing this tool over deep_quarantine_scan_tool or quarantine_scan_dir_tool.

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