Get one vulnerability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the read-only nature via 'Returns' and describes both the plugin and affected assets. It doesn't discuss error handling or authentication, but the output schema exists, and the provided context about exposure breadth adds behavioral insight.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by use case and alternative. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or excess length.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter provenance, and relationship to sibling tools. It omits failure modes, but that is a minor gap given the output schema and low complexity.

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 add meaning. It does so by identifying plugin_id as the Tenable plugin ID (not CVE) and explaining how to obtain it via query_vulnerabilities. This gives the parameter practical significance beyond a bare string field.

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 returns a single Tenable plugin (vulnerability) by ID along with affected OT assets, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with CVE-based lookup and referencing query_vulnerabilities.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use this tool ('reason about exposure breadth') and provides an alternative path for CVE lookup ('call query_vulnerabilities first then fetch by plugin_id'). This is clear, actionable guidance that differentiates from related tools.

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