audit_stack

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. Description adds valuable behavioral context: rate-limit cost (up to 2 calls per technology), filtering for critical/high severity CVEs with public exploits, sorting by EPSS probability. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and example with rate-limit detail. Front-loaded with key action. 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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, output nature, and a critical behavioral detail (rate limit). Complete for an audit tool.

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% (parameter has description). Tool description repeats constraints and adds example, but does not provide additional semantic depth beyond the schema. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 audits a technology stack for exploitable vulnerabilities, specifies the action (audit), resource (stack), and output (risk-sorted CVEs). It distinguishes from siblings like search_exploits by focusing on a limited set of technologies and prioritization.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when a user describes their infrastructure and wants to know what to patch first.' Also warns about rate-limit cost. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but context is clear.

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