getVulnerabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the paginated nature, summary-level content, and project scoping. The word 'Retrieve' signals a read operation, though it does not explicitly say non-destructive or mention rate limits/auth, which are less critical for a list operation.

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?

A single concise sentence communicates the action, resource, scope, and response contents without redundancy. Well front-loaded and no wasted words.

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 description is sufficient for a simple list tool: it explains the return fields (since no output schema), indicates pagination, and scopes to the current project. Minor gaps like sort order or page size are already covered by the parameter schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about the response fields but no additional parameter-specific meaning, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('paginated list of vulnerability summaries'), and the scope ('current project'). It specifies the included fields (ID, title, risk rating), distinguishing it from single-item or full-detail sibling tools.

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 implies use for retrieving summary lists and notes the 'current project' scope, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over getVulnerability or getAllVulnerabilityDetails, nor any exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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