pmg_statistics_virus

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: declares READ-ONLY, explains output format, maps start/end to starttime/endtime, and mentions the configuration prerequisite. No contradictions.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information without 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and is not overly complex, the description is complete: covers purpose, parameters, prerequisites, alternatives, and return type. No significant gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that start/end are Unix epoch times and mapping them to starttime/endtime, and by noting the PROXIMO_PMG_* configuration requirement, which aids parameter understanding.

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 it is a READ-ONLY tool for getting PMG virus statistics, specifies the return type (list of dicts with virus-detection counts), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool pmg_quarantine_virus for per-message quarantine entries.

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 explicit usage context: optional Unix epoch timespan, configuration requirement (PROXIMO_PMG_* config), and a clear alternative (use pmg_quarantine_virus for per-message entries). It tells the agent when not to use this tool.

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