get_sca_vulnerability

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 states the tool retrieves detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a concise 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of security vulnerability tools, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., data format, errors), usage context compared to siblings, and output expectations, making it inadequate for informed tool selection and invocation.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains the 'vulnerability_id' parameter as 'The ID of the vulnerability to retrieve,' adding meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is high, and this provides basic but not rich semantic context (e.g., it doesn't specify the ID format or source).

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 as 'Get detailed information about a specific SCA vulnerability,' which includes a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('SCA vulnerability'), and scope ('specific'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_vulnerabilities' or 'list_sca_vulnerabilities,' which likely serve different purposes (searching vs. listing vs. getting details).

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 prerequisites, such as needing a vulnerability ID from another source, or compare it to siblings like 'search_vulnerabilities' for broader queries or 'list_sca_vulnerabilities' for overviews. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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