Audit Tech Stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: rate-limit cost (up to 2 API calls per technology), search scope (critical/high severity CVEs with public exploits), sorting by EPSS probability, and grouping by technology. No contradiction.

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?

Approximately 5 sentences, each adding distinct value: action and output, when to use, example, rate-limit info. No redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description covers input format, limit, example, rate-limit cost, and describes the return structure (risk-sorted list grouped by technology). It lacks details on supported technology names or error handling but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 covers 100% with a description for the only parameter. The description adds value by specifying comma-separated format, max 5 limit, and an example. This helps the agent understand the format and constraints beyond the schema's basic description.

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?

Clearly states the tool audits a tech stack for exploitable vulnerabilities, returning a risk-sorted list of CVEs grouped by technology. The verb 'audit' and resource 'technology stack' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_exploits or search_vulnerabilities by focusing on an audit of a stack with prioritization.

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?

Explicitly says to use when a user describes their infrastructure and wants to know what to patch first. Includes an example. Does not explicitly contrast with siblings but the context makes it clear this is for initial vulnerability assessment.

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