lc_list_vulnerability_resolutions

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention if the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication, leaving the agent without critical safety and usage context.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail and structure. It does not earn its place by providing sufficient information for proper tool use.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no param descriptions, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to define 'resolution overlays', explain parameters, or describe return values, making it inadequate 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 does not explain any parameters. The agent cannot understand the meaning or purpose of 'oid', 'limit', 'scope', 'cursor', or 'resolutions' from the description alone.

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 the tool lists 'stored vulnerability finding resolution overlays', indicating the verb (list) and resource (resolution overlays). It distinguishes from sibling list tools like lc_list_vulnerability_cves or lc_list_vulnerability_endpoints by focusing on resolutions, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, making it unclear for an agent to select among many list tools.

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