pmg_quarantine_spamstatus

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

The description identifies the operation as a read ('(read)') and provides an underlying API path. However, it lacks detail on what the 'summary' includes, potential output size, or error conditions (e.g., if the config is missing). With no annotations provided, the description should disclose more behavioral traits.

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, with only two sentences that cover purpose, prerequisite, and a technical path. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 that the tool has an output schema (which documents return values) and a well-covered parameter schema, the description is fairly complete. It provides the essential purpose and dependency info. A slightly richer description of the summary contents or typical use cases would enhance completeness, but it is adequate.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single optional 'proximo_target' parameter, which is well-explained in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'spam quarantine status summary', indicating a read operation. It mentions a specific PMG path, which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like pmg_quarantine_spam or pmg_quarantine_virusstatus, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 specifies a prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config'), which is useful. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pmg_quarantine_spamusers or pmg_quarantine_virusstatus. Without exclusionary criteria or context, an agent may misuse it.

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