get_vulnerability_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. The agent lacks assurance about safety or permissions.

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?

The description is extremely concise at 9 words. However, given the lack of other context, it is too terse; additional details would be warranted. The structure is front-loaded but sparse.

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?

The description omits essential context such as response format, error behavior, or any limitations (e.g., maximum number of IDs). For a retrieval tool with no output schema, this leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 only parameter 'vuln_ids' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description merely repeats 'list of vulnerability IDs' without adding constraints, format, or source guidance. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves details for vulnerability IDs, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_vulnerabilities and scan_file, which imply different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or contextual hints. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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