roboshadow_get_vulnerable_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists applications and provides CVE counts and upgrade info, but does not mention pagination behavior (though schema covers it), whether results are read-only, or any side effects. It is a list operation so likely safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and key output details (per-severity CVE counts, upgrades). There is no wasted wording, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and outputs. It does not describe return format or pagination defaults, but the schema already covers pagination and the description hints at the output structure. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (days, page, itemsPerPage, organisationId) are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, format, or relationships. Per the baseline rule, with high coverage a score of 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 clearly states the tool lists applications with known vulnerabilities, per-severity CVE counts, and available upgrades. The verb 'List' and resource 'applications' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like roboshadow_get_vulnerable_devices or roboshadow_get_cve_vulnerabilities, though it doesn't explicitly call out those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for applications rather than devices, or that a summary is available via roboshadow_get_vulnerabilities_summary. The description implies a straightforward listing use case but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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