List my vulnerability reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context: results are scoped to the signed-in researcher, sorted newest first, and include status and claimed severity. It also signals that lifecycle details like comments and history live in get_report, setting correct expectations for the list.

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: the first front-loads scope, ordering, and included fields; the second covers filters and the follow-up tool. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient: it states sorting, filtering options, and the path to full report detail. Pagination parameters are fully documented in the input schema, so their absence from the description is not a gap. This is complete for a filtered list tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the filter parameters (programme/status/severity/text) without adding syntax or meaning beyond the schema; 'claimed severity' is already stated in the severity property. No significant extra semantic value is added.

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 identifies a specific resource (vulnerability reports), scope (only those the signed-in researcher submitted), and ordering (newest first). It is clearly distinguishable from get_report, which the description explicitly points to for full report details.

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?

It states the filtering dimensions (programme, status, severity, text) and explicitly routes follow-up detail needs to get_report (…full report, comments, status history, adjudication and appeals). It does not explicitly contrast with list_org_reports or search, but the 'signed-in researcher' scope cue plus the get_report pointer gives sufficient selection context.

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