list_vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, response format, or side effects. The agent is left to infer that listing is a simple read operation without any confirmation of safety or performance implications.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is efficient but lacks additional context that could enhance usability without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, the scope of inventory (e.g., all agents or specific), or how pagination works. More context is needed for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, thus scoring a baseline 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Wazuh vulnerability inventory', indicating the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_vulnerabilities', which may perform similar functions with different filtering capabilities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings like 'search_vulnerabilities' or 'get_agent'. The description lacks any indication of use cases, prerequisites, or context for selection.

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