cork_get_software_vulnerability_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behavior: grouping by product, counting devices/versions, and showing highest severity. However, it does not reveal default scoping when client_uuid is omitted, ordering behavior, or pagination characteristics.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and output fields are front-loaded, followed immediately by scoping and follow-up guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape (device counts, version counts, highest severity) and how to proceed for details. Minor gaps exist around default behavior without client_uuid and sort/pagination semantics, but these are acceptable for a read-only summary tool.

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 71%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful context for client_uuid ('scope to a single client') and clarifies the rollup semantics. It does not, however, add value for sort_by or sort_direction beyond their enum names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get a rollup') and identifies a precise resource ('CVEs grouped by software product'), while listing the output fields (impacted devices, impacted versions, highest severity). It also names the sibling tool cork_get_software_vulnerabilities as the drill-down counterpart, making the distinction clear.

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 instructs the agent to use client_uuid to scope to a single client and directs a follow-up to cork_get_software_vulnerabilities for CVE-level detail. This provides both when-to-use and an alternative, helping the agent select between the summary and the detailed sibling tool.

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