top_vulnerable_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the internal scoring formula (critical*10 + high), that it iterates sensors, and that scanning is capped for safety on large clusters. The main gap is that it never states this is a read-only/no-side-effect operation or what permissions are required.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then adds a compact explanation of mechanism and a short Args block. Every sentence carries weight, though the sensor-iteration detail is mildly implementation-flavored.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-shape detail (top limit hosts with CVE counts) is a bonus rather than a requirement. For a single-parameter read tool with no annotations, the definition supplies enough mechanism and the safety cap to call it correctly; only auth/side-effect framing is absent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only a default, but the description adds the valid range '(1–1000)' and the meaning of the value ('Number of top hosts to return'), which the schema does not provide. It fully compensates for the single undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rank the most vulnerable hosts in the cluster by CVE severity') and gives the exact scoring formula, so an agent can distinguish it from get_workload_cves (per-workload) and summarize_cluster_posture. It does not name a sibling explicitly, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (use this to find the worst hosts), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of get_workload_cves or top_risky_flows as alternatives, and no stated prerequisites.

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