assets_get_vulnerability_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results include details and the number of vulnerable services, but lacks information on pagination, sorting, or explicit read-only confirmation. This is adequate but not rich.

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, starting with a clear purpose sentence. The example request is relevant and well-formatted, though it adds a bit of length.

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?

The tool is simple with no output schema. The description notes the response includes details, but doesn't clarify pagination, scope (whether for a specific asset or all assets), or any limitations. Enough for basic use but has gaps.

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 schema covers filter field and operator semantics, but the top-level request_data lacks description. The description adds an example request body, which helps clarify usage, but doesn't fully explain the purpose of request_data or all filter options.

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 'Get a complete or filtered list of vulnerability tests,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like assets_bulk_update_vulnerability_tests by focusing on retrieval.

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?

It provides clear context for retrieving vulnerability tests, including an example filter. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, only implying its use for listing rather than modifying.

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