list_vulnerabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default limit, or return format, which could be useful beyond what the schema offers.

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, focused sentence that communicates the core function without redundancy or excessive detail. It is appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the purpose effectively.

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?

The tool has no required parameters and a well-documented schema, and the read-only annotations cover safety. The description accurately identifies the resource and module. Some might expect explicit mention of default limit or alternatives, but the schema provides the filtering details, making the overall definition reasonably complete.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including allowed values for state and severity. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter semantics, but the schema carries the burden, so a baseline 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 vulnerability entries from the Vulnerability Response module, using the verb 'List' and specifying the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vulnerability and update_vulnerability, which target single records or modifications.

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 such as get_vulnerability or scan_vulnerabilities. It does not mention appropriate scenarios, filtering strategies, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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