roboshadow_get_remediation_attempt_cves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List' which implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose whether the attemptId is required to be from a specific remediation report, whether the list is paginated, or what happens if the attemptId is invalid. For a read tool with no annotations, this is a minimal disclosure.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It earns its place, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

For a simple list tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from stating whether the result is a list of CVE IDs or full details, and whether any filtering or pagination applies. The lack of output schema means the description should clarify return value shape, which it doesn't.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is clear: attemptId is a hashed identifier and organisationId is a UUID discoverable via a sibling tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CVEs addressed by one remediation attempt'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like roboshadow_get_cve_vulnerabilities or roboshadow_get_remediation_report. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource and scope are clear enough.

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 implies usage: call it when you need the CVEs tied to a specific remediation attempt. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of remediation attempt is clear. The organisationId parameter description references roboshadow_list_organisations for discovery, which provides some usage guidance.

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