Per-system vulnerability details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description ('Retrieves') is consistent with a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the nested vulnerabilities array and pagination, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or authorization requirements. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the added context earns a mid-range score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. The second sentence explains the record structure and capabilities without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the record structure (system with nested vulnerabilities array, listing key fields). It covers the essential context for a filtered-list read-only tool with 9 optional parameters, though it does not detail the 'raw' projection behavior, which is left to the schema.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats that filtering and pagination are supported, without adding meaning to specific parameters. No parameter semantics are enriched beyond the schema.

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's function with a specific verb ('Retrieves systems affected by known vulnerabilities') and identifies the resource and granularity ('Each record is one system with a nested vulnerabilities array'), distinguishing it from vulnerability-centric sibling tools like threats_vulnerability_computers_detail.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as threats_vulnerabilities_list or threats_system_report. It does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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