get_clam_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that it is read-only (implied by 'Get' only), no permission requirements, no indication of what config scope or format is returned. With zero annotation coverage this is a significant 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?

A single four-word phrase with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.

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 no parameters, the description is the only source of information an agent has, and it explains neither what 'file config' contains nor what the response looks like. For a retrieval tool this leaves the agent unable to predict the result.

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 tool takes no parameters (0 required), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related information is missing.

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?

It states a verb (Get) and a resource (ClamAV file config), so the basic action is identifiable. However, 'file config' is ambiguous — it could be the ClamAV file-scanning configuration, a per-file config record, or the config file contents — and the description does nothing to separate it from siblings like get_clam_base_info, list_clam_configs, or update_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 mention of the sibling tools it might be confused with (get_clam_base_info, list_clam_configs). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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