Install Malware Scanner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Install Monarx malware scanner on a VPS') but fails to mention potential side effects, installation time, idempotency, costs, or whether the action is reversible. The description is too sparse to help the agent understand the operation's impact beyond the basic action.

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, highly concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's core function. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no fluff or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), so the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks contextual details that could help the agent, such as what happens after installation, success/failure indications, or any prerequisite checks. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is sufficient for basic understanding but leaves gaps for a complete operational picture.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, with 'vm_id' well-described as 'Virtual machine ID'. The description adds no additional semantics for the parameter, but none are needed given the schema's completeness. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's action: installing the Monarx malware scanner on a VPS. It uses a specific verb ('Install'), names the exact resource ('VPS'), and identifies the specific software ('Monarx'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vps_malware_uninstall and vps_malware_metrics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as vps_malware_uninstall for removal or vps_malware_metrics for checking status. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which installation is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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