list_vulnerabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the basic functionality but omits important behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, default result limits, or error handling. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences and no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and then succinctly lists supported features. This is ideal for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool's core functionality.

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 complexity (4 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what happens with multiple results (pagination), default sorting, or output format. A more complete description would address these operational details for a listing 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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra value by calling filters 'DQL-style' and providing a sort example, but these are already present in the schema descriptions. Per scoring rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 tool's purpose: listing security vulnerabilities from Dynatrace Platform Vulnerabilities v1. It also mentions optional features (filter, sort, time range), making the resource and action obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, though the vulnerability context is specific.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide comparative context with other list tools like list_problems or list_audit_logs. The sibling list tools are numerous, but the description provides no decision-making criteria.

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