get_r_asset_suppress_vulnerability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method (GET) and that it retrieves data, but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, required authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves the agent without important behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and endpoint, then maps the generic schema properties to their purposes. It is compact and every clause adds information. It could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately sized for a simple GET wrapper.

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 has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description still lacks critical context: what 'suppress vulnerability' means in this domain, what route IDs are valid, what filters are available, and how pagination works. Given the large sibling list and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin to let an agent call this correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers', which adds some meaning to the generic schema properties. However, it does not explain what specific route IDs, filters, or pagination parameters are expected, leaving the agent to guess at the actual parameter names and formats.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('suppress vulnerability'), and names the exact HTTP endpoint. It is clear this is a read operation for suppressed vulnerability data. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling get_r_asset_suppress_vulnerability_id or the related report query tools, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_r_asset_suppress_vulnerability_id or get_r_report_queries_suppress_vulnerability_problems. It only states where to put parameters, not when this endpoint is the right choice. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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