Vulnerability Diff

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

The description explicitly confirms the destructive write behavior, stating it persists the fresh scan and may prune older reports, going beyond the annotations. This adds valuable context about side effects.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by behavioral details and return value summary. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 complexity (diff with side effects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, side effects, and return type adequately. No missing critical information.

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 schema describes the 'baseline' parameter, and the description clarifies its role and default behavior (if omitted, uses latest saved report). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds complementary context without redundancy.

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 compares a fresh scan against a baseline to find new and resolved vulnerabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scan' by specifying the diff behavior and the fact it runs a new scan and diffs.

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 context (comparing scans to find changes), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'scan' or when not to use it. It lacks explicit when-to-use and 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.