get_clam_base_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read-only lookup, not what fields are returned, not whether it requires ClamAV to be installed or running. For a zero-parameter info getter this is a real gap.

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 words, front-loaded, zero waste or filler. It is not bloated, though its brevity is under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a bare description, an agent has no way to know what this call returns or when it is the right call. The description should at minimum name the returned information (e.g., engine/definition versions and status) and disambiguate it from the other ClamAV tools.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit.

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 essentially restates the tool name with the acronym expanded ("clam" -> "ClamAV"). It gives no indication of what "base info" contains (version, engine state, signature DB date) nor how it differs from siblings like get_clam_configs, get_clam_records, or get_clam_file.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives, even though the sibling list contains several other ClamAV tools an agent could easily confuse this with. Nothing is misleading, but nothing is offered either.

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