get_nessus_vulnerability_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing states whether this requires specific scan/host context, whether the lookup is expensive, or what authorization is needed; the phrase 'plugin output' hints at potentially large payloads that are never qualified.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the sentence is arguably too short to carry the required context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the operation is a simple three-parameter lookup. The remaining gaps are the undocumented parameters and absent behavioral context, which are real but modest for a tool this simple.

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 0% and all three parameters (scan_id, host_id, plugin_id) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description only implies a linkage between scan, host, and plugin without explaining the composite key or the ID formats, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Get detailed information and plugin output for a vulnerability'), which is clearer than a bare restatement of the name. However, it never differentiates itself from close siblings like get_nessus_plugin or get_nessus_scan_details, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which lookup to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives in the sibling list. The agent learns nothing about the conditions that select this tool over get_nessus_plugin or list_nessus_vulnerabilities.

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