action1_list_vulnerability_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free, does not mention pagination or default limits, and does not disclose any potential rate limits or authorization requirements. Still, the behavior is straightforwardly transparent for a list operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it optimally concise.

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?

The tool is simple, and the output schema plus full parameter coverage in the input schema already explains return values and parameter details. The description effectively communicates the core purpose. However, it could optionally mention that cve_id is required or that the operation is read-only, though these are partially inferable from the schema and verb. Overall, it is adequately complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 three parameters (cve_id, limit, org_id) with individual descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not compensate or add further meaning.

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 'List the endpoints affected by one CVE' uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('endpoints'), and a precise scope ('affected by one CVE'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vulnerabilities (lists CVEs) and get_vulnerability (details about a CVE), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_endpoints (all endpoints) or get_vulnerability (CVE details). There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.

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