security_audit_sbom_vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, no side effects, idempotent, performance note (10s for large SBOMs), 1-hour cache, and verified source (Google OSV.dev batch API).

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?

Multiple sentences, but all add value. Front-loaded with purpose and key behaviors. Not overly verbose; each sentence earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema (implicitly documented in description), the description covers input, behavior, performance, caching, and alternatives. Comprehensive enough for an agent to use correctly.

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, but the description explains sbom_json as CycloneDX or SPDB JSON string, required, and adds the context of format. Could be improved by mentioning expected JSON structure, but sufficient for usage.

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 it audits an SBOM for vulnerabilities, specifying input format (CycloneDX or SPDX JSON) and output (CVEs grouped by package with severity and fixed versions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities for single packages.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool (full SBOM) and when to use an alternative (single package via security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities). Also includes a feedback mechanism if the result is inadequate.

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