list_sca_vulnerabilities

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 mentions the tool is for 'searching' but does not clarify if it's read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination details beyond defaults), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters. It avoids redundancy, but could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose and parameter explanations more seamlessly.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, error handling) and output details, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Optional search term to filter vulnerabilities' for search_query), provides examples (e.g., 'npm, pip, maven' for ecosystems), and clarifies defaults (e.g., page default: 1), fully compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

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: 'Search for SCA (Software Composition Analysis) vulnerabilities in dependencies.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('SCA vulnerabilities'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'search_vulnerabilities' or 'get_sca_vulnerability', which prevents a score of 5.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'search_vulnerabilities' or 'get_sca_vulnerability', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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