Query plugin (vulnerability) definitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares READ-ONLY, explains that plugins appear regardless of environment impact, and details that `search` performs single-term substring matching. It also discloses that structured filters are not exposed due to unconfirmed behavior, adding useful limitation context. However, it does not mention pagination or error behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: three short paragraphs covering purpose, alternatives, and parameter behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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 description is highly informative for a query tool, covering catalog semantics, usage alternatives, and search limitations. However, it does not distinguish this tool from `export_plugin_definitions` (a sibling tool) nor explain the pagination parameters (`limit`, `start_at`), leaving minor gaps in an otherwise thorough description.

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 input schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It only explains `search` (single-term substring match) and leaves `limit`, `sort_by`, `start_at`, and `descending` completely undocumented. Users are left to guess their meaning, formats, and usage, which is a significant gap.

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's purpose: it returns Tenable plugin definitions (the vulnerability checks themselves) and lists the returned fields (id, name, family, severity, VPR score, assets affected). It explicitly distinguishes this from per-asset findings, making the tool's role unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings like get_asset_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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: use `get_asset_vulnerabilities` for asset-specific vulnerabilities and `export_findings` for a bulk dump of findings. It also clarifies what this tool is not for (per-asset findings) and explains the omission of structured filters, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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