Get environment vuln summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no new behavioral context beyond 'across all images'. It does not describe what the summary contains (e.g., counts, severities) or any side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not additive.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff. However, it could briefly mention what 'summary' entails without becoming verbose, so it loses one point for missing potential valuable detail.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and complete annotations, the description is functional but lacks detail on the output format or the nature of the summary. Without an output schema, the agent might need more guidance on what to expect. The sibling list is large, so minimal contextual completeness is acceptable but not excellent.

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% with a single required parameter (environmentId) described as 'Environment ID'. The description does not add any further meaning or formatting hints beyond what the schema provides, so 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 action (get), the resource (environment-wide vulnerability summary), and the scope (across all images). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'arcane_vulnerability_get_image_options' which focuses on a single image's options, and 'arcane_vulnerability_get_scan_summary' which is per scan summary.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or explicit context for choosing environment-wide vs image-specific vulnerability queries. The description only implies its use for an overview.

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