search_vulns

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 that results are grouped by source type and scoped to the configured team, which is useful context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or what happens when filters yield no results.

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 with four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: explaining what it does, recommending its use, describing output grouping, and noting scoping. No redundant information.

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 the 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers high-level behavior (grouping, scoping, recommended use) but lacks a quick note on combining filters or pagination details, which would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is adequate.

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 tool searches vulnerabilities across app libraries and container images, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_app_vulns. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'vulnerabilities' with additional context on grouping and scoping.

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 explicitly says 'This is the recommended default tool for general vulnerability queries,' providing clear usage guidance. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the sibling tool names imply alternatives for specific scopes.

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