Vulnerability Diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it 'runs a new scan' which might imply a side effect, but annotations clarify safety. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful process context.

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 relatively concise with three short paragraphs. The 'Returns:' section could be trimmed given the output schema, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action.

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's simplicity (optional baseline parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, how it works, and what returns. No missing information for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 single parameter 'baseline' is well-described in the input schema ('Baseline report JSON object. If omitted, uses the latest saved report from history.'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new semantic value beyond that the tool diffs against it.

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: 'Compare a fresh scan against a baseline to find new and resolved vulns.' It specifies the action (compare/diff) and the resources involved (scan, baseline). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scan' or 'fleet_scan' which focus on scanning without comparison.

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 implies usage when a user wants to see differences between scans, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using 'scan' twice manually). No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided, which is a gap given the many sibling scan tools.

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