dynatrace_managed_list_security_problems

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It does add useful output context by listing the kinds of data returned (package names, technology details, vulnerable components, risk assessment). However, it does not disclose any behavioral quirks, defaults, limits, or relationship to environment aliases, though these are partially covered in the schema.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It includes concrete output categories without unnecessary elaboration. The only slight filler is 'comprehensive,' but it does not meaningfully hurt clarity or conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey enough about the return value; it does list primary output categories, which is helpful. However, it omits any guidance about pagination limits, default time windows, or when to combine this with get_security_problem_details for deeper inspection. Given the schema covers most invocation details, the description is minimally viable but leaves several contextual gaps.

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 baseline is 3 and the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters like sort, limit, status, riskLevel, or entitySelector, but the schema already documents them thoroughly, including examples and constraints. The description's mention of risk assessment data loosely aligns with riskLevel but adds little 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 identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('security problems and vulnerabilities from the Managed cluster'), and it distinguishes this tool from sibling list_problems (general problems) and get_security_problem_details (single-problem detail). The mention of package names, technology details, and risk assessment data further clarifies what kind of listing this is.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_problems or get_security_problem_details. The description does not state whether this should be used before fetching details, how it relates to the general problems API, or when filtering via entitySelector would be preferable. The usage context is only implicit from the tool name and schema.

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