scout_cves

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: authentication prerequisites, platform-specific host login needs, format-dependent result encoding, and the non-zero exit behavior (only missing plugin raises, otherwise inspect raw.stderr). This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It covers purpose, usage alternatives, auth prerequisites, error behavior, and all parameters in a well-organized structure with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return dict structure (format, result, raw) and how result varies by format. It also covers error handling and authentication context. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is complete.

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%, but the description's args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning. It clarifies format semantics (no plain 'json', some formats parsed into result, some returned verbatim), only_fixed, ignore_base, only_severity, and platform. This adds meaning that the bare schema names and enums do not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List vulnerabilities (CVEs) in an image via Docker Scout.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pointing to scout_quickview for summaries and scout_sbom for package inventory without vulnerability matching.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: anonymous scans for public images, docker login requirements for policy enforcement, and clear alternatives ('Start with scout_quickview...; scout_sbom inventories...'). It also warns about exit-code behavior and when to inspect raw.stderr.

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