pmg_statistics_virus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly marks the tool as a read operation ('read') and maps start/end parameters to query params. It also discloses the config requirement. No side effects are hinted, which is appropriate for a read-only tool.

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 three short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose. Minor detail: the 'live-verified path' sentence is somewhat tangential but not excessive. Overall, it is efficient and to the point.

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 description covers the basic purpose and parameters, and references a config requirement. However, it does not explain the nature of the statistics (e.g., counts, top viruses) or whether they are real-time. Given the output schema exists, this gap is partially mitigated, but a bit more context would help.

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 description adds meaning to start/end parameters by describing them as 'Unix epoch start/end timespan' and noting their mapping to query params, which goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions. The proximo_target parameter already has a schema description. The coverage is partial but the description compensates well.

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 'Get PMG virus statistics (read)' with a specific verb and resource. The name 'pmg_statistics_virus' directly indicates the target, distinguishing it from other PMG statistics tools. The mention of optional Unix epoch timespan adds specificity.

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 that it requires PROXIMO_PMG_* config and provides optional timespan parameters, but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over siblings like pmg_statistics_mail or pmg_statistics_sender. No alternative tools or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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