lc_get_vulnerability_dashboard

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

No annotations exist. Description says 'fetch' implying read-only, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The burden is on description, which fails to provide 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and object. No redundant information. However, it might be too concise given the need for parameter clarity.

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?

Tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but description lacks explanation of what the graph data contains, how 'oid' is used, and the effect of 'sort_asc'. Insufficient for the agent to understand the output or make informed choices.

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 0%. Description does not explain the meaning of required parameter 'oid' or optional 'sort_asc'. With no additional context, the agent cannot understand how to use these parameters effectively.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'fetch' and resource 'vulnerability dashboard graph data'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lc_get_vulnerability_cve and lc_get_vulnerability_epss_history by specifying graph data.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions provided. Implicitly assumed to be for fetching graph data, but lacks context for decision-making.

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