vulnerability_count

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It briefly states the operation is a 'Count' but does not explain what the response looks like, any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The information is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the endpoint path, but it contains an incorrect requirement statement and vague phrasing. It could be concise yet accurate, but the inaccuracy reduces its effectiveness.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination, or filtering behavior. It lacks completeness and does not prepare an agent to use 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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, the tool description incorrectly claims 'Required: q, searchQuerys' when the schema marks them as optional (anyOf with null). This misleads the agent about parameter usage. The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, and the error reduces clarity.

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 says 'Count objects by stuff' which is vague and does not specify what objects are being counted (e.g., vulnerabilities). The endpoint path 'GET /vulnerability/count' hints at counting vulnerability objects, but the phrasing is unclear. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like vulnerability_search or other count endpoints.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks information about prerequisites, when it is appropriate to call this tool, or when another tool (like vulnerability_search) would be better. The sibling list includes many related tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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