get_enhanced_vulnerability_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state idempotency, side effects, or permission requirements. The promise of 'comprehensive' information lacks specifics about scope or reliability.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it omits usage guidelines that could be incorporated without significant bloat, preventing a perfect score.

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's purpose to deliver detailed vulnerability info and the lack of an output schema, the description provides minimal context about what the response contains (OWASP, CWE, remediation). It does not mention severity, affected components, or examples, leaving 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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'vuln_type' is well-defined with an enum and a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Get), the resource (vulnerability information), and specifies included content (OWASP mapping, CWE references, remediation guidance). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like scanning or fixing, which address different purposes.

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 siblings such as 'enhanced_scan_file' or 'scan_directory', nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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