Get malware detection settings (VBR 12.1+)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly describes a read-only operation ('Return') and adds the version requirement. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications or requires specific permissions, which would strengthen transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately defines the tool's purpose and output scope. It mentions what configuration aspects are returned (enabled, thresholds, exclusions) but could briefly mention the return format (e.g., JSON) for completeness.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description has no need to add parameter info. The baseline score of 4 applies as no additional meaning is required.

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 verb 'Return' and specifies the resource 'VBR’s malware-detection configuration' with concrete details about content (enabled, thresholds, exclusions). It distinguishes itself from siblings which focus on jobs, backups, and other areas.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires VBR 12.1+') but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The context from sibling names implies a specialized read-only config retrieval, but explicit guidance is absent.

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