list_clam_configs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' weakly implies a non-mutating read, but nothing is said about return volume, pagination, permissions, or what a 'config' consists of. For a zero-annotation tool this is thin.

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 a single four-word phrase with no filler, which is appropriately front-loaded. It is arguably too terse to be informative, but it wastes no space.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter list tool it is minimally viable, but it says nothing about the shape or scope of results and no output schema exists to fill that gap. An agent gets no help understanding what it will receive back.

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 zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parametric for the description to explain or compensate for.

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 verb and resource ('List' + 'ClamAV configs'), but it is essentially a verbatim expansion of the tool name 'list_clam_configs' and adds no distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as get_clam_base_info, get_clam_file, or get_clam_records.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_clam_base_info or get_clam_file, and no stated context or prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for reading ClamAV configuration lists.

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