search_vulnerability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. It also describes the resolution process (including alias handling) and return structure (per-project analysis state), providing sufficient transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief explanation of the process, a usage hint, and a clear Args section. No redundant information.

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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the overall behavior, parameters, and usage context comprehensively for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

All three parameters are explained in the description beyond the input schema: vuln_id includes examples, active_only and only_analyzed have clear explanations of their effects and defaults. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Search which projects are affected by a vulnerability.' It explains the process of resolving a vulnerability ID and finding affected projects with analysis states per component, distinguishing it from siblings like find_vulnerability or list_findings.

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 explicitly advises to use the tool for answering which products are affected by a CVE and what decisions have been made, avoiding manual iteration. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context and sibling list provide alternatives.

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