scout_cves

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses important error behavior: 'Does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit (a missing scout plugin still raises) — inspect raw.stderr.' It also notes that richer recommendations require docker login, adding practical operational context not captured in annotations.

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 well-organized: a purpose sentence, a usage paragraph, an error-behavior note, and a structured arg/returns block. Every sentence adds value without redundancy; no fluff.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and the need to differentiate from sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites (login), alternatives (quickview/sbom), error handling, every parameter, and the exact return shape.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully. Each parameter receives a clear semantic explanation: image is 'a tag or a digest', only_severity lists allowed values, format enumerates all output types with the default json, and platform shows an example. Return structure is also specified.

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 clear, specific verb+resource: 'List vulnerabilities (CVEs) in an image via Docker Scout.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing scout_quickview and scout_sbom as alternatives for different needs.

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Start with scout_quickview for a per-severity summary; scout_sbom inventories packages without vulnerability matching.' It also explains the login prerequisite and anonymous-scan behavior, giving context for when this tool is appropriate.

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