VirusTotal: subir archivo

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and may have side effects (openWorldHint). The description confirms it is a mutation (upload) and adds behavioral context: it handles large files automatically and only initiates analysis if the hash is not indexed. This adds value beyond the annotations. 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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately conveys the primary purpose and condition. The second adds a key feature. No unnecessary words or repetition. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema and is a mutation with one parameter, the description could be more complete. It does not explain what happens after upload (e.g., returns a scan ID, status, or error), nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication. While annotations hint at side effects, the lack of return information leaves the agent with an incomplete understanding of the tool's full behavior.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'filePath', including a description that specifies it is for APK files. The tool description adds no further parameter details beyond restating that it uploads a file. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, the description offers minimal additional semantic value.

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 action ('Sube un archivo' - upload a file), the target (VirusTotal for analysis), and the condition (when hash not yet indexed). It also highlights a distinctive feature (handles large files). This differentiates it from sibling tools like vt_file_report which likely only check reports.

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 when to use the tool: when the file's hash is not yet indexed. It implies that if the hash is already indexed, the sibling tool vt_file_report should be used instead. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it or provide alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to make a decision.

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