Get Catalog Vulnerabilities Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds a useful nuance: catalog_summary is unfiltered while images/matched/cves honor the filters. It does not disclose pagination/limit behavior or how many tags are aggregated.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the scope and followed by the one non-obvious field-semantics point. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and all three optional parameters are schema-documented. The description covers scope and filter semantics adequately; only minor details like default limit behavior (50) are left to the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds filter-application semantics beyond the schema: it tells the agent which output fields reflect image and min_severity (and, implicitly, that catalog_summary does not). That is genuine value over the per-parameter descriptions.

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 ('Get catalog-wide CVE stats') plus scope ('across every current tag, with per-image counts'), which distinguishes it in practice from get_tag_vulnerabilities_tool and get_release_vulnerabilities_tool. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 catalog-wide scope implies when this tool applies (aggregate view rather than single tag/release), and the second paragraph clarifies how the filters affect results. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative statement naming get_tag_vulnerabilities_tool or find_cve_tool.

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