Query OT vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries behavioral transparency. It discloses pagination behavior (total_count, has_more, end_cursor), the nature of results (CVEs, CVSS, exploit flags, age, solution), and the server-side filtering limitation. It makes clear the tool is a query operation without side effects.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, a pagination explanation paragraph, and bullet-style filter explanations. Every sentence earns its place and adds value; it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains result contents, pagination, total_count for 'how many' questions, and filter vocabularies. It also tells the agent when to use a complementary tool. No significant gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly explains severity_at_least, cve, family, and source with natural vocabulary. It also explains 'after' through pagination (pass end_cursor as after). However, the 'search' parameter is not mentioned at all, and 'limit' is only implicitly referenced via page size, so not every parameter is illuminated.

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 Tenable plugins (vulnerabilities) matching the filter criteria' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling query tools like query_assets and query_events by focusing on vulnerabilities and listing the exact return fields.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus get_vulnerability: 'Call get_vulnerability on a returned plugin id to see every affected asset.' It also explains pagination usage with after/has_more/end_cursor, and notes filtering limitations (KEV flags are not filterable). Lack of explicit when-not-to-use alternatives prevents a higher score.

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