get_antivirus_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the response envelope and that errors surface via status/message, which is real behavioral context, but it omits whether this is strictly read-only, what permissions are needed, and whether a missing profile raises an error or returns an empty profile.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns layout is scannable with no filler prose. The Returns block partially duplicates the declared output schema, which is the only wasted content.

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 a two-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: intent, both parameters, and the error envelope. It stops short of the failure-mode and permission context an agent needs when a lookup may not resolve, leaving a meaningful gap for a no-annotation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not: 'adom: ADOM name' merely restates the schema title 'Adom', and 'name: Antivirus profile name' only slightly narrows 'Name'. Neither explains whether ADOM is the management container, whether a full path or scope prefix is accepted, or any format expectations.

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 ('Get detailed information about an antivirus profile'), which lets an agent separate it from the mutation siblings update_antivirus_profile/delete_antivirus_profile and from list_antivirus_profiles. It never explicitly names those siblings, so the list-vs-get distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required 'name' parameter signals a single-object lookup, so an agent can infer it should call list_antivirus_profiles first and then fetch details. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the list tool, nor any note on what happens if the profile does not exist in the given ADOM.

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