List malware / threat detection events (VBR 12.1+)

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 discloses the version constraint and expected error on older builds, but does not describe read-only nature, rate limits, or data freshness. Adequate but minimal extra context.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. First sentence defines purpose with examples, second sentence adds version requirement and intended use. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, version requirement, and use case. It omits details about pagination or return format, but these are partially implied by the limit parameter and common knowledge. Overall adequate.

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% (both limit and stateFilter have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it neither adds nor detracts. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'malware-detection events raised by VBR', with concrete examples (suspicious activity, infected restore points, etc.). No sibling tool covers this exact purpose, so it is clearly distinguished.

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?

Explicitly states the version requirement (VBR 12.1+) and notes that older builds return an error, which sets clear usage context. Also suggests feeding events into ransomware detection and incident response, providing a use case. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but context is sufficient.

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