list_ignored_vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool lists, implying a read operation, but omits details on authentication (agent_token), idempotency, rate limits, or pagination, leaving significant gaps.

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, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, making it minimally viable but not optimally informative.

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 the lack of output schema and multiple sibling vulnerability tools, the description should clarify return format, scope (global or per environment), and usage context. It does not address these, leaving the agent with insufficient information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (env_id, agent_token). It fails to explain their purpose, acceptable values, or impact on results, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'ignored vulnerabilities', indicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_all_vulnerabilities' or specify scope (e.g., per environment), which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_all_vulnerabilities' or 'get_vulnerability_summary'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having ignored vulnerabilities) or the role of parameters like env_id.

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