mvs_list_vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says 'List'; it does not disclose pagination, the software_only endpoint switch, filtering semantics, or any side effects. The schema mentions software_only, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

One sentence with the key scoping qualifier 'across the whole estate' front-loaded; there is no filler, redundancy, or restatement of the tool name.

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 schema is rich and includes an output schema, so parameter details and return shape are covered. Still, the description alone leaves an agent without guidance on selecting this over closely related vulnerability tools or on the software_only distinction, making it minimally viable rather than comprehensive.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, sorts, offset, filters, software_only, and include_fields. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema fully carries that weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('vulnerability catalogue') with an explicit estate-wide scope. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling get/asset-scoped tools such as mvs_get_vulnerability and mvs_list_assets.

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 phrase 'across the whole estate' implies this is for unqualified, estate-wide enumeration rather than a single vulnerability or asset. However, it never states when to prefer this over mvs_get_vulnerability, mvs_list_missing_patches, or related search tools, and offers no explicit exclusions.

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