Get program

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the returned fields but omits whether the call is read-only, what happens when nothing matches, and how the 'one inventory entry' framing squares with the schema's multi-match 'limit' parameter (default 10, max 50) and the with_cves toggle — a real ambiguity for a lookup tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the subject first and then lists the returned content. It is efficient and contains no filler, though it spends its words on return values rather than the invocation guidance an agent also needs.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it only partially covers this. The return composition is sketched, but match/multiple-match behavior, defaults, and failure modes are left to the schema or entirely unstated.

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 limit, program, and with_cves are already fully documented in the schema with defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying CVE inclusion, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Detail view of one inventory entry') and enumerates the payload (sources, paths, versions, CVEs), which is far more informative than the bare title 'Get program'. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like scan_inventory or cve_detail, though, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as scan_inventory or cve_detail. The phrase 'Detail view' weakly implies this is the drill-down counterpart to a scan, but nothing states when to prefer this tool or what input form (name substring vs exact id) is appropriate.

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