CVE Scan (Trivy)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return content: severity breakdown and critical vulnerabilities with fixed versions, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with purpose and output details. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the agent can expect in return. It doesn't mention potential runtime length or external network dependencies, but these are minor for a read-only scan. Overall, complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

The only parameter (path) is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('Absolute path to the repository root'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter guidance, which is the baseline 3 for this dimension.

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 scans for known CVEs in the dependency tree using Trivy, and identifies the key output (severity breakdown and critical vulnerabilities with fixed versions). This distinguishes it from sibling security tools like secret_scan and semgrep_scan.

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 indicates the tool targets dependency tree CVEs via Trivy, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over overlapping siblings like dependency_risk or security_scan. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, leaving the decision heuristic to the agent.

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