List Vulnerability Exceptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds operational context by noting tenant scoping and the canonical store, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. Given the annotation coverage, the description provides modest extra value beyond the baseline.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List tenant-scoped exception evidence') and adds the store qualifier without filler. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

For a read-only listing operation with three optional parameters and an output schema provided, the description covers the essential scope. It does not mention edge cases like default tenant resolution or result ordering, but these are minor given the schema and output schema. The tool is simple enough that the description, combined with structured data, is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%—all three parameters (limit, status, tenant_id) have detailed descriptions with defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema fully documents them. Baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('exception evidence'), and a clear scope ('tenant-scoped' and 'canonical store'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like request_exception and approve_exception by focusing solely on listing existing exceptions, which is immediately clear from the language.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving existing exceptions, but it does not explicitly contrast with create/approve workflows or mention when to prefer it over siblings. It provides context ('tenant-scoped', 'canonical store') but no explicit exclusion or alternative routing, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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