go_vuln_by_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes a fetch-and-filter operation but omits details like whether it's read-only, rate limits, error handling, or if the module index is cached. The lack of transparency is notable for a query tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant or extraneous information. The description is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently completes with the method.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return format or behavior (e.g., list of vulnerabilities, empty results). It only says 'filters for entries' without specifying what is returned. Missing context on error cases or pagination leaves the agent with incomplete information.

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 100% with a single parameter 'module' already described in the schema as a Go module path with examples. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming it filters by that path. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 finds Go vulnerabilities for a specific module, with a precise verb ('Find') and resource ('vulnerabilities affecting a specific module'). It distinguishes from siblings like go_vuln_id (by ID) and go_vuln_list (list all) by focusing on module path filtering.

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 implies usage when you have a module path, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No comparisons with siblings like go_vuln_id or go_vuln_list are given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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