pmg_quarantine_virus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It correctly flags the tool as read-only and describes the return format. It does not detail authentication scoping beyond pmail defaults, but the read-only nature limits 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?

Three well-structured sentences. The first sentence states purpose and read-only hint, the second covers config and return type, the third provides sibling differentiation. No redundancy.

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 output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is concise yet complete. It covers config prerequisites, return shape, user scoping, and sibling comparisons. No gaps remain for a read-only list 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds only minor value by noting pmail defaults to the authenticated user, which is already implied in the schema. 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 specifies the tool's action: 'list virus quarantine entries.' It explicitly marks it as 'READ-ONLY,' distinguishing it from similar tools like pmg_quarantine_spam and pmg_quarantine_action.

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 states the prerequisite config ('Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config'), explains default behavior for pmail, and explicitly lists alternatives for spam and actions, guiding when to use sibling tools.

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