get_image_vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing that AWS Inspector v2 is used if enabled, with a fallback to ECR basic scan, and it lists the required IAM permissions. This goes beyond a generic 'get' and helps the agent anticipate permissions and behavior.

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: purpose, key behavior, necessary permissions, then parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the Args section provides exactly the missing semantic detail without fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, backend behavior, permissions, and all parameter semantics. An output schema exists to explain the return structure, so the lack of return-value discussion is acceptable. Minor gaps remain around severity_filter default behavior and possible error cases, but the tool is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 must explain the parameters itself. It does, giving meaningful semantics for repository_name, image_tag (default latest), and severity_filter (with an example value). This is enough for an agent to populate the arguments appropriately.

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 immediately states 'Get vulnerability findings for a container image in ECR' with a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies the exact scope (ECR, container image) and includes useful details about the underlying scanning mechanisms, making it easy for an agent to distinguish from the observability-focused sibling 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 makes it clear that this tool is for container image vulnerability scanning, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied by the purpose, but there is no direct comparison or exclusion guidance.

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