find_vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'scan' and lists patterns, but does not explain whether the scan is static or dynamic, whether it executes the binary, what side effects may occur, how long it might take, or what kind of output is produced.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource before listing specific vulnerability classes. It contains no filler, though the long pattern list could have been slightly condensed without losing value.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how the results are presented. This description only states what it scans for, not what the agent should expect afterward. It also does not address how it relates to exploit_hunter or whether findings are reported as a list, report, or severity-ranked results.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents binary_path and scan_depth, including the enum semantics for scan_depth. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('scan') on a specific resource ('a binary') and enumerates concrete vulnerability patterns it checks for. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like exploit_hunter, but the pattern list gives enough specificity for basic differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as exploit_hunter, analyze_binary, or triage_binary. The context implies it is the natural choice for vulnerability scanning, but no explicit selection criteria or exclusions are given.

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