Get the vulnerability taxonomy

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond that: the meaning of baseline priority, optional CVSS/CWE mappings, and the fact that query matching applies to ids and names. This supplements the schema without contradicting it.

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 deliver the tool's purpose, content, consumer relationship, and a parameter usage tip with no wasted words. The most important information—what the taxonomy is and who needs it—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?

For a simple read-only list tool with a full output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential usage context: how the data is used, what it contains, and how to query it efficiently. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by advising use of the query parameter as the primary filtering mechanism and characterizing it as an alternative to paging. The meaning of limit and offset remains schema-documented, which is adequate.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as returning the published vulnerability taxonomy used for BugSecure grades, and enumerates the node fields (id, name, baseline priority, CVSS, CWE). It also ties the resource to its consumer, grade_report, making its role unambiguous even among many siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when the tool is needed ('grade_report needs a node id from here') and gives direct operational guidance to prefer the query filter over paging. No alternative tool is named, but none is needed since this is the sole taxonomy source; only a formal 'when not to use' statement is missing.

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