scan_clam

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. It does not say whether the scan is synchronous or async, whether it mutates state, what happens on a detection, or what permissions are 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?

Three words are front-loaded but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The brevity leaves the agent unable to act without reading sibling tools or guessing.

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 annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a bare three-word description, an agent has nothing to determine the scan target, side effects, or result shape. This is inadequate for even a one-parameter tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for `id` — it could be a config id, file id, or record id. The only mitigating factor is that a single identifier parameter is a familiar pattern, so it is not entirely opaque.

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 names a verb (Scan) and a resource (ClamAV), so the general domain is clear, but it never says what is being scanned or what the `id` refers to. With siblings like get_clam_file, get_clam_records and clean_clam_records, there is no differentiation of scope or target.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the other ClamAV siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether a config or signature DB must exist first). Usage must be entirely inferred.

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