quarantine_quarantined_objects__list_quarantined_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond this: it does not mention pagination behavior, the 1000-item page-size cap, or that the fields parameter is applied locally after fetch rather than forwarded to ESET.

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 a single compact sentence that leads with the verb and resource, with the endpoint appended. It is slightly redundant by restating "List quarantined objects" and then "List all quarantined objects," but nothing is wasted overall.

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?

For an 18-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the description should at least sketch the returned shape or pagination defaults. Those gaps are partly mitigated by the very thorough parameter schema and by annotations confirming a read-only, idempotent operation, making the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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% with 18 richly documented parameters, including enum value explanations, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description only refers generically to "the criteria in the filter" and adds no syntax or interaction guidance beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is this high.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List quarantined objects") plus the underlying endpoint GET /v1/quarantined-objects, and clarifies that results are filtered by criteria. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_quarantined_object or get_quarantined_objects_count, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage (listing quarantined objects matching a filter) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions favoring the single-object get call, and no mention of when to prefer the count sibling. The agent must infer routing from tool names alone.

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