roboshadow_get_cpe_vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' conveys a non-mutating, organisation-wide query, and pagination is implied by the schema, but the description does not disclose what a finding contains, result ordering, limits, or response shape.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler. The resource is front-loaded and the acronym is expanded, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple paginated list-tool with fully documented parameters, but it does not describe the returned findings or explain how CPE vulnerability findings differ from the many closely related sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, some return-shape context would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning with 'across the organisation', clarifying that the query is scoped at the organisation level.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('CPE vulnerability findings'), and expands the CPE acronym. It is broadly distinguishable from siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with closely related tools like roboshadow_get_cve_vulnerabilities.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as roboshadow_get_cve_vulnerabilities, roboshadow_get_vulnerable_applications, or roboshadow_get_vulnerabilities_summary. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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