vt_scan_file_tool

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

The description discloses the upload-vs-hash-lookup behavior, which is useful beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations, it omits critical details like API key requirements, behavior for unknown large files, and potential side effects of uploading.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds essential behavioral detail 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?

An output schema exists to explain return values, and the description covers the main file-size branching. However, it leaves gaps around prerequisites (e.g., API authentication, file path validity) and edge cases such as a large file not already in VirusTotal's database.

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 fully documents file_path with a clear description, so the 100% coverage means the description adds no additional parameter meaning. 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 states the tool scans a file using VirusTotal, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like vt_scan_url_tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.

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?

It provides size-based operational context (under/over 32MB) but gives no guidance on when to choose this over vt_get_file_report_tool or other related tools. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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