list_vulnerabilities

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

The description indicates the tool returns a list and supports filtering, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose other behavioral traits like pagination (limit parameter is mentioned only in schema), default ordering, or what happens when no results are found. The existence of an output schema partially compensates.

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 very brief (two lines) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient, though it could include a brief note about the output without becoming verbose.

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 list tool with 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient but lacks details on pagination, sorting, or the structure of results. It does not guide the agent on how to interpret the response, though the output schema may fill this gap.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter (severity, status, limit). The description merely restates the filtering capability without adding new meaning, so baseline 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 clearly states that the tool lists vulnerabilities and supports filtering by severity and status. It uses specific verb '列出' (list) and resource '漏洞' (vulnerabilities), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_vulnerability' which likely retrieves a single record.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, such as for retrieving a single vulnerability (use get_vulnerability) or statistics (get_vuln_stats).

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