Quarantine Stats Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It meaningfully discloses profile-based scoping and the operator-wide view, which is important behavioral context. It also signals a read-only operation through 'Get', though it does not explicitly guarantee no side effects.

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 two tight sentences: the first front-loads the verb and resources, and the second adds scoping exceptions. There is no fluff, redundancy, or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so invocation is straightforward. The output schema handles return-value details, and the description covers both normal profile-scoped behavior and the operator-wide exception. Nothing call-relevant is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information because none is needed, and schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Get', and names three concrete resources: trentina configuration, Q-Agent status, and blocklist summary. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that perform scans, searches, fetches, reads, or reloads.

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 clear context about scope: the calling profile sees its own audit rows, detections, and defense settings, while an operator profile gets a gateway-wide view. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but no sibling appears to serve the same stats/config/status purpose.

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