roboshadow_get_vulnerabilities_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the description clarifies the aggregate scope, but it does not disclose whether the result is cached, how freshness works, what 'critical' means, or any permission or rate-limit considerations.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the concrete output components. There is no redundancy or filler, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse what the tool returns.

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 tool is a read-only summary with only two parameters, one required, and no output schema. The description names the key result areas, which is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it and roughly what to expect. Minor gaps remain around severity meaning and result shape, but the tool's low complexity keeps these from being major.

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 the organisational scope but does not enrich the semantics of `days` or `organisationId` beyond what the schema states, such as validation or default behavior.

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') and resource ('organisation-wide vulnerability summary'), and enumerates the exact contents: devices by severity, top-5 critical apps/CVEs/devices, and the most critical server/workstation. This clearly distinguishes it from the per-device sibling roboshadow_get_device_vulnerability_summary and from other report tools.

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 states that this is an organisation-wide summary, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as roboshadow_get_vulnerable_applications, roboshadow_get_cve_vulnerabilities, or roboshadow_get_device_vulnerability_summary.

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