scan_file

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

Discloses async nature (returns analysis_id immediately), cost ($0.10 USDC per scan), and verdicts. Lacks info on rate limits or error handling, but overall provides key behavioral traits given no annotations.

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?

Concise 5-6 sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, URL requirement, async return, polling instruction, verdicts, use case, pricing. No wasted words.

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?

Explains return value (analysis_id), verdicts, and polling interval. Mentions cost and subscription. Lacks output schema but covers expected outcomes. Could mention file size limits or error scenarios, but overall complete for a scanning tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by noting that the file_url must be publicly accessible and that RelayShield handles the download, which is not in the schema description.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Submit a file for binary malware analysis across 70+ AV engines.' Distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_url (URL scanning) and check_scan_result (polling for results).

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'Use when a user receives an email attachment and forwards the download link.' Also explains the async workflow and polling with check_scan_result. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but implications are clear.

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