vulnerability_scan

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

Annotations already declare it safe, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it depends on an operator-installed binary, queries osv.dev over the network by default, and can be switched to a pre-downloaded DB via ENGINEERINGOS_OSV_SCANNER_OFFLINE=1. It still omits the failure mode when the scanner is missing.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the environment-variable caveat following. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool wrapping an external binary with a network dependency, the description covers invocation context but says nothing about what a result contains (findings, severity, clean vs. failed scan) and there is no output schema to compensate. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions repo_path or timeout. An agent learns nothing about what repo_path should point at (root vs manifest dir) or how timeout is interpreted, beyond the schema's bare default of 120.

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?

Specific verb+resource: runs OSV-Scanner against detected dependency manifests to find known-vulnerability matches. This is clearly distinct from code_security_scan or dependency_health, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 implies the scenario (auditing dependency manifests for CVEs) and gives a useful operational note about the default network call, but it never states when to choose this over security_scan, code_security_scan, or dependency_health, nor when not to use it.

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