sbom_scan_vulnerabilities

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the main behavioral aspects (cross-referencing, retrieving vulnerabilities) but does not disclose side effects like file creation when using directory_path, authentication needs, or rate limits. Acceptable but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loading the core purpose and clarifying parameters. No redundancy, each sentence adds value.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers inputs and outputs reasonably well. Could mention output format or pagination, but overall adequate given the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds context for the two path parameters (mode of use) but does not elaborate on enum parameters (verbosity, severity_threshold) beyond schema. Marginal added value.

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?

Clearly states tool cross-references SBOM components against OSV.dev vulnerability database and returns specific outputs (CVE IDs, CVSS scores, severity, fix recommendations). Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on vulnerability scanning vs generation or diffing.

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?

Provides clear instruction on when to use directory_path (generate fresh SBOM) vs sbom_path (load saved artifact). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but sufficient for guidance.

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