vuln_prioritize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the criteria (exploitability and business impact) but does not disclose whether this is a read or write operation, any side effects, authentication needs, or output format. The minimal sentence leaves significant uncertainty about 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence without fluff. It wastes no words, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Could benefit from one or two additional clarifying sentences.

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 complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output, the prioritization algorithm, or any dependencies. A tool this complex needs at least a few more sentences to be complete.

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 only 33% (only previous_scan_id has a description). The tool description does not explain the meaning or structure of the 'findings' array or 'business_context' object beyond the schema. It hints at prioritization criteria but does not map them to parameters, leaving the agent underinformed.

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: prioritize vulnerabilities based on exploitability and business impact. This verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cve_lookup (lookup only) or incident_triage (incident response).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having scan results), context (e.g., after a vulnerability scan), or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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