List detected vulnerabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent ('Retrieves'). Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned data fields (CVE IDs, CVSS scores, exploit status, patch availability) and noting pagination support, which helps set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 verb and resource, and avoids any redundant or filler content. Every clause adds information about the output or capabilities.

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?

For a read-only list tool with 18 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers scope, return fields, filtering, and pagination. It could mention default ordering or explicit alternatives, but these are not critical given the schema and purpose clarity. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 18 parameters, each with its own clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the generic statement that it supports 'extensive filtering and pagination'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 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 tool 'Retrieves the network-wide list of detected vulnerabilities' and enumerates the key fields returned (severity, CVE IDs, CVSS scores, exploit status, etc.). This distinguishes it from per-system vulnerability tools like threats_system_report_vulnerabilities and threats_vulnerability_computers_detail, which are sibling tools.

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 clear context: this is a network-wide list endpoint with extensive filtering and pagination. It implies the tool is for broad vulnerability discovery rather than per-system detail, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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