pmg_quarantine_spam

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

The description marks the tool as read-only but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, or data format beyond 'list of dicts'. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient for a richer understanding.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then listing alternatives. No redundant words or explanations, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, list output), the description adequately covers what it does, what it returns, and distinguishes from related tools. The reference to an output schema being present (though not shown) is sufficient.

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 single optional parameter 'proximo_target' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

Description clearly states 'list PMG quarantined spam messages' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_quarantine_virus, pmg_quarantine_attachment, and pmg_quarantine_action, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly states 'READ-ONLY' and requires 'PROXIMO_PMG_* config', providing context for when to use. It also names alternative tools for specific use cases (virus, attachment, actions), though it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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