action1_list_vulnerability_remediations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and clarifies that it 'does not create or run one,' which is a key behavioral trait. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation, this level of disclosure is adequate.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. Every word contributes meaning: the first sentence states the action and scope, and the second sentence clarifies the read-only nature. No wasted space.

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?

As a read-only list tool with a fully self-describing schema and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It could optionally explain what a 'remediation' is or mention the org_id default, but the schema already covers those details. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for limit, cve_id, and org_id. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that the tool is specific to 'one CVE,' which aligns with the required cve_id. Thus, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List remediations already configured for one CVE,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like action1_list_vulnerabilities and action1_get_vulnerability by focusing on remediations rather than the vulnerabilities themselves.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to see existing remediations for a specific CVE) and explicitly states it does not create or run one, which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide more specific when-not-to-use guidance.

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