asset_list_vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists vulnerabilities and can be filtered, leaving out pagination, response structure, default limit, or whether any side effects occur. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The allowed value lists are directly attached to the relevant parameters in a compact format, with no unnecessary 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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not clarify whether the list covers all assets or a specific asset, what 'limit' controls, or what the response contains. It also does not differentiate from related asset tools in terms of context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides allowed values for min_severity and status, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, host_ip is only vaguely referred to as 'host', and limit is not explained at all, so compensation is incomplete.

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 tool lists vulnerabilities, with specific optional filters by host or severity. This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_list_hosts and asset_list_services. The allowed values for min_severity and status further clarify the scope.

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 the tool is used to list vulnerabilities, and the provided allowed values for min_severity and status offer some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor exclusions (e.g., use asset_mark_vuln to update status).

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