mvs_get_asset_vulnerability

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation ('Get') without mentioning side effects, permissions, error behavior, or special conditions (e.g., whether the asset must be affected). The output schema exists, but the description does not clarify behavioral traits like idempotency or data safety.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and front-loaded, stating exactly what the tool does without fluff.

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 description is adequate for a simple get operation given the output schema and documented parameters, but it lacks guidance on use cases and differentiation from similar tools (e.g., mvs_get_vulnerability). An agent could invoke it correctly, but might not know when to prefer it over siblings or what the output represents beyond schema.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented in the input schema (asset_id as 'The asset's UUID.', vulnerability_id as 'The vulnerability identifier.'). The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose is clear: verb 'Get', resource 'one vulnerability', scope 'as it applies to one specific asset'. This distinguishes it from siblings like mvs_get_vulnerability (likely asset-agnostic) and mvs_list_vulnerabilities (list), making it evident this is a targeted single-pair query.

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 for retrieving a specific vulnerability in relation to a specific asset, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as mvs_get_vulnerability or mvs_assets_affected_by, nor does it state when not to use the tool. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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