get_r_report_queries_suppress_vulnerability_solution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'Calls GET', implying a read operation, but does not disclose response shape, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or side effects.

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 brief and front-loads the core action and endpoint before invocation details. It is somewhat awkwardly punctuated ('Retrieve records Calls GET...') but every sentence contributes useful 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?

Although an output schema exists, the generic input schema and zero annotation coverage leave important gaps: what 'suppress_vulnerability_solution' records represent, what route IDs are expected, which headers are required, and what filters/pagination options exist. The description provides a shell but not enough for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters and pagination, and headers to required request headers. However, it leaves the body parameter unexplained and omits concrete filter/pagination parameter names.

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 action and resource: 'Retrieve records' via 'GET /r/report_queries/suppress_vulnerability_solution'. It is clear this is a fetch operation for that endpoint, though it does not differentiate among the many similar get_r_report_queries_* siblings.

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 placement instructions ('Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query...') but no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are provided.

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