get_issues_by_vuln_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (get statistics grouped by vulnerability class) but doesn't cover critical aspects such as whether it's a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how data is returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits like permissions or return format. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful, but the description meets a basic threshold for a simple statistical 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the tool's output semantics (grouping by vulnerability class and showing distribution by categories like XSS and SQLi), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. This goes beyond the schema's information.

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's purpose: 'Get issue statistics grouped by vulnerability class/type' and 'Shows distribution of vulnerabilities by category (XSS, SQLi, etc.)'. This specifies both the action (get statistics) and the resource (issues grouped by vulnerability class), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_summary_statistics' or 'search_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_summary_statistics' (which might provide broader statistics) or 'search_vulnerabilities' (which might allow filtering), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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