get_vulnerability_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining that the report is offline and that CVE lookups are not included, which prevents false expectations. There is no contradiction with 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 consists of two short, focused sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical limitation. 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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain the report's format, structure, or how the output is delivered (e.g., file path or response object). The note about CVE integration adds context, but the description leaves room for ambiguity about the output's nature.

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 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters (path and includeDev). The description adds only that the report lists 'all project dependencies for vulnerability review,' but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: generating an offline dependency report for vulnerability review. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('dependency report'), and the phrase 'offline' distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_dependencies that may perform online checks.

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 notes that actual CVE lookups require Phase 2b online integration, providing clear context that this tool is for offline report generation only. This implies when not to use it (for full vulnerability analysis), but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide exclusions.

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