lc_list_vulnerability_host_packages

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (though parameter 'cursor' suggests pagination), or response format. Minimal transparency beyond basic purpose.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence). However, given the tool's complexity (12 parameters), it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to improve usability.

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?

Incomplete for a tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral guidance. Does not explain return values, pagination, or filtering. Requires additional documentation for effective use.

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%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. It does not clarify what 'oid' or 'sensor_id' represent, nor how optional parameters like 'search', 'filters', 'sort_by' work. The description provides no value beyond the schema itself.

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 (list), resource (vulnerable packages and CVEs), and scope (on one sensor). It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on different scopes (e.g., CVEs across sensors or packages globally), but does not specify if it lists all packages or only those with vulnerabilities.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. Among siblings, there are tools like lc_list_vulnerability_cve_hosts and lc_list_vulnerability_cve_packages, but the description does not differentiate when to use this tool versus those.

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