Build a remediation plan for a CVE or an endpoint (read-only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top by asserting 'Does NOT execute' and specifying the workflow handoff to action1_deploy_update. It could have noted scope requirements (org_id, or that cve_id/endpoint_id is an either/or selector), which is why it is not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the read-only correlation purpose and followed immediately by the non-execution constraint and handoff. 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 rich annotations, the description only needs to convey purpose and non-execution semantics, which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify the cve_id-vs-endpoint_id selector logic, which matters for a tool with zero required parameters.

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% with five well-documented parameters including enum and format constraints, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, not even that cve_id and endpoint_id are alternative selectors or that org_id scopes the result.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: correlating vulnerabilities with the updates that fix them, producing a plan. It also distinguishes itself from the execution sibling by naming action1_deploy_update. However, it never explicitly says it 'builds a plan' for a CVE or endpoint as the title does, and does not differentiate from near-neighbors like action1_list_cve_remediations or action1_create_cve_remediation.

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?

Gives a clear use rule: it does not execute, and the result should be handed to action1_deploy_update. That is a genuine when-to-use and what-next statement. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over the other CVE remediation tools (list/create/update), so no explicit exclusions beyond the deploy sibling.

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