appknox_vulnerability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It simply says 'Get detailed information' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, what specific data fields are returned, or any authentication requirements. The minimal wording offers no insight into the function's behavior beyond the obvious.

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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is entirely front-loaded with no redundant words or filler, making it highly concise and well structured.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one fully described parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any indication of what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., severity, remediation), which could be important for the agent's decision-making. Given the low complexity and high schema coverage, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter 'vulnerability_id' with type and description, so the description adds no additional semantic value. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; there is no need for the description to elaborate further.

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 a specific action ('Get detailed information') on a specific resource ('a specific vulnerability'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like appknox_analyses (likely listing) and appknox_owasp (likely framework data). The verb+resource combination is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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 such as appknox_analyses or appknox_sarif. The description only states the basic function without any context about prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a vulnerability_id) or when a user would need it. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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