compare_vpr_reprioritization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses output fields, sorting (escalated first), filtering semantics, and the assessment context. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or discuss side effects, but the table-building purpose implies no mutation, and the description provides more context than typical.

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 organized in two focused paragraphs, front-loading the core action and output. The use-case sentence and sorting rationale earn their place, though the text is longer than a minimal two-sentence summary.

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 the tool's complexity and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential what, why, and filtering options. It lacks only a small clarification of limit's role, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 explains severity and plugin_family as optional filters 'same as search_vulnerabilities', adding real meaning. The limit parameter is not described beyond its name/default, but two of three parameters receive useful semantic context.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Build' and clearly states the tool produces a before/after re-prioritization table comparing CVSS vs VPR severity per plugin, with rerating flags and asset counts. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its comparison/assessment focus rather than simple listing or asset details.

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?

It explicitly identifies the intended scenario: POC/assessment deliverables and Tenable One CTEM engagements, which tells an agent when to reach for this tool. It also references search_vulnerabilities for filter behavior, though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools for plain vulnerability listing.

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