pci_get_vuln

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the response includes 'full detail' and 'prose fields,' and clarifies the relationship to pci_list_vulns. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides the essential parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 a single required parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential usage context. It could optionally mention when to use this over pci_get_scan, but for a focused detail-retrieval tool with good schema support, it is nearly complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the only parameter, detection_id, as 'The finding's `id` from pci_list_vulns -- not its `qid`.' This adds critical semantic meaning beyond the raw integer schema and prevents a common misuse.

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 fetches 'Full detail for one vulnerability finding, including prose fields,' which specifies both the verb (get) and the resource (a single vulnerability finding). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pci_list_vulns by emphasizing 'one vulnerability finding' and cross-referencing the list tool.

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 explicitly instructs that detection_id should be taken from pci_list_vulns and not the qid, providing clear guidance on the correct ID source. While it doesn't enumerate alternatives or exclusions beyond the qid distinction, this is sufficient for a simple get-by-id tool.

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