virus_scan

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

Description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as scan methodology, file handling, privacy, or output format. Without annotations, the description fails to inform the agent about potential side effects or limitations.

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 concise but includes extraneous pricing and API details that do not clarify tool behavior. It is front-loaded with a security tag but lacks efficient structure for agent decision-making.

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 simple 1-parameter tool, the description omits essential information like output format (scan result), file size limits, or security considerations. No output schema is provided, so the description should compensate but does not.

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% with a clear description for the single parameter 'fileUrl' (文件URL). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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?

Description states '病毒扫描' (virus scan) and adds '[Security]' context, clearly indicating the tool scans files for viruses. The parameter 'fileUrl' specifies the resource. While it repeats the name, it provides enough context to distinguish from non-security sibling tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'phish_check' or 'aml_screen'. The description only includes pricing and API URL, with no mention of prerequisites or use cases.

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