List Node.js Vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'List known vulnerabilities' with no details about read-only behavior, caching, scanning process, or response format. It does not disclose whether this triggers a scan or returns cached results, nor does it mention any side effects or prerequisites.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the action and resource, making it appropriately concise.

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 simple list tool, the description is minimally viable but lacks important context. There is no output schema, so the description should explain what kind of vulnerability information is returned (e.g., severity, patched status). It also does not reference related tools like the patch operation or clarify the scope of 'dependencies' beyond the required domain and username.

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 100% with 'domain' and 'username' clearly described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 'List known vulnerabilities in Node.js dependencies' clearly states a specific action (list) and resource (known vulnerabilities in Node.js dependencies). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'hosting_nodejs_patch_vulnerabilities' by focusing on listing rather than patching.

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. It does not mention the existence of 'hosting_nodejs_patch_vulnerabilities' or suggest running this before patching. No prerequisites or usage context are provided beyond the required parameters in the schema.

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