list_vulnerability_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining data provenance, exact reconciliation limits, and that no estimated or unverifiable figures are included, plus noting the tool is free. It does not cover return format, but for a read-only list tool this is sufficient 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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. The following sentences earn their place by clarifying data reliability, use case, and cost. The 'FREE' note is slightly tangential but still useful for agent decision-making.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, the scope of the data, a use case, and pricing. It could specify the exact output shape, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this a minor gap.

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%, with a single optional enum parameter that already documents 'protocol_type' and its default. The description adds only a passing implication of filtering by protocol type, so it does not meaningfully supplement what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('historical vulnerability patterns and acceptance rates from Sherlock audit-competition findings'). The 'historical' qualifier and mention of statistical patterns clearly distinguish this analytics tool from the sibling scan_contract and get_scan_report 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 states a clear use case: 'useful for understanding what types of bugs are most likely to be valid in a given protocol type.' It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the analytical framing and sibling tool names make the intended selection obvious.

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