get_vulnerabilities

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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent). Description adds return format but contains a misleading mention of 'specified version' while input schema has no version parameter, causing confusion.

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?

Compact two sentences plus a return block, well-structured with USE WHEN and RETURNS. However, the inaccurate version mention wastes space.

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?

Despite providing return structure, the description introduces an unsupported version concept and does not fully address the tool's capabilities given the schema. Missing explanation of how to use for latest vs. specific version.

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 0%, and description fails to explain the 'ecosystem' or 'package' parameters. The mention of 'specified version' is incorrect given the schema, adding no value and causing harm.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves CVE/OSV advisories for a package, with specific usage conditions. It distinguishes from siblings that check other aspects like maliciousness or typosquatting.

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?

Provides explicit 'USE WHEN' conditions (security-sensitive, user asks about CVEs, package exists). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear enough.

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