Get vulnerabilities for one asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It lists the specific vulnerability fields returned (CVEs, CVSS v3 score/vector, exploit flags, age, disclosure date, vendor solution), giving a detailed picture of behavior. It does not mention pagination/limit behavior or error cases, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 two tightly written sentences. The first sentence front-loads purpose and output contents, the second provides alternative usage. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose, output fields, and usage context. Since an output schema exists, listing return fields is a bonus rather than a requirement. Missing details about limit/pagination and error handling are minor gaps given the overall clarity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the input is 'one OT asset', which maps to asset_id, but it does not explain the limit parameter. The schema's default and type suffice for limit, but a brief mention of 'limit number of returned vulnerabilities' would strengthen the description.

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 states 'Returns the open vulnerabilities (Tenable plugins) affecting one OT asset' – a specific verb (Returns) and resource (vulnerabilities) with clear scope (one asset). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling query_vulnerabilities by emphasizing asset-scoped access.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Use query_vulnerabilities for global vuln filtering (KEV-only, exploit-available, severity floor, etc.); this tool is asset-scoped.' This gives clear contextual guidance and exclusion.

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