search_container_vulns

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions scoping to team and return fields, but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, authentication, or rate limits. As a search tool, it's minimally adequate.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key return fields. No superfluous words.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and return content, though it omits explanation of pagination behavior beyond the schema.

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%, so the parameters are well described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, earning a 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?

The description clearly states it searches container image vulnerabilities from yamory, listing specific return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting app, asset, host vulns.

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 implies use for container image vulnerabilities via its name and description, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance beyond the sibling tool names.

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