go_vuln_id

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states return data but omits behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., behavior for invalid IDs). Adequate for a simple fetch operation.

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 front-load the action and resource, with no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description covers return contents sufficiently. However, it lacks details on error scenarios (e.g., not found or invalid ID) and does not reference any pagination or limits. Still good for a simple lookup.

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% and includes an example value ('GO-2024-2824'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the single parameter.

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 fetches a Go vulnerability by its ID from the Go Vulnerability Database and specifies return contents (advisory details, modules, versions, references). It distinguishes from sibling tools like go_vuln_by_module and go_vuln_list through the precise focus on ID lookup.

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 Go vulnerability ID, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like go_vuln_by_module for module-based queries. Only indirect context from sibling names.

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