list_cve

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

Read-only safety is already carried by readOnlyHint, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the response includes a CVE evaluation state for single-container queries and an empty list only means 'no known CVEs' when that state is 'evaluated'. It also discloses the Personal-edition licensing prerequisite, which is a real gating condition.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope first, then the result-interpretation caveat, then the edition prerequisite. No filler and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

Only two optional parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the one interpretive risk an agent would otherwise get wrong (empty list vs. unevaluated state) plus the licensing gate. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and reading of results.

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 both parameters already document allowed severity values and the omit-container_id behavior, so the description's restatement of the filters adds little syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List active CVE vulnerabilities detected in container images') plus the two filter dimensions, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from list_containers, list_risk_scores, or get_security_posture in the sibling set.

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?

Gives clear usage context: filters are optional, omitting container_id lists across all containers, and the tool requires the Personal edition. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. get_security_insights) or stating when not to use it, so it is strong but not fully routing-aware.

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