get_file_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a 'concise summary' with key details, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., hash not found), or 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 concise with two sentences plus a parameter section. It front-loads the main action and output. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'comprehensive file analysis report' and 'concise summary') but overall well-structured.

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 description adequately covers the core function given the presence of an output schema. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., get_file_behavior_report) and does not explain the optional api_key parameter. The overall completeness is moderate.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. For the 'hash' parameter, the description adds meaning by specifying allowed hash types (MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256) and providing an example. However, the 'api_key' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'comprehensive file analysis report'. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the output (detection stats, threat classification) and explicitly mentions accepted hash types (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256).

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 implies usage by listing the input and output, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_file_behavior_report or get_file_behavior_summary. No when-not-to-use or context for api_key is given.

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