list_vulnerabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like pagination (implied by 'limit' param), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with large result sets. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it could be more specific. While concise, it borders on under-specified rather than optimally informative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with 5 parameters for filtering vulnerabilities, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return format, error handling, or typical use cases. For a list operation in a security context, more guidance on scope and limitations is needed to be fully helpful.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering capabilities through 'list' and the module context. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples, but the schema does the heavy lifting, justifying the baseline score.

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 'List vulnerability entries from the Vulnerability Response module' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('vulnerability entries'), but it's somewhat vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from potential siblings like 'get_vulnerability' (singular) or 'scan_vulnerabilities' (action). It specifies the source module, which helps, but lacks detail about what constitutes a 'vulnerability entry'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention whether this is for filtered queries, bulk retrieval, or initial discovery, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_vulnerability' (for single records) or 'scan_vulnerabilities' (for active scanning). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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