quarantine_scan_tool

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that it does not return content, returns a threat assessment with risk level, vector counts, and Q-Agent observations, and always runs full detection. This is transparent, though it could mention if any state is modified or if authentication is required.

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 three sentences, no redundant words, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: purpose, input constraint, output summary, and behavioral note.

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 simple 2-parameter schema with no required fields and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's role (pre-flight scan), constraints, and return structure sufficiently. No critical gaps are apparent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, but the tool description adds the crucial constraint 'Provide either url or path (not both),' which is not in the schema. This adds meaningful behavioral semantics beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 it is a 'Pre-flight security scan' that detects injection vectors without returning content. The verb 'scan' and resources 'URL or path' are explicit, and the phrase 'without returning content' distinguishes it from siblings like scan_content_tool that may return scanned content.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Provide either url or path (not both).' It also states it 'Always runs full detection regardless of trust level,' providing context for when it runs. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or scenarios when not to use it, leaving some inference required.

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