score_aivss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns scores and posture, but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or error behavior. For a read-like scoring tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds essential information: purpose, input, and verbosity behavior. No fluff or 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?

The description explains output structure based on verbosity, which compensates for lack of output schema. It covers input constraints and customization options. Missing error handling details, but overall complete for a scoring tool with 4 parameters.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining verbosity levels and what each returns ('minimal' for posture, 'compact' for scores, 'full' for all metrics). It also clarifies overrides as manual AIVSS metric overrides and source_tool for normalization hints.

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 explicitly states the tool scores findings using OWASP AIVSS v2. It specifies the input type (any scanner output or raw findings JSON) and output (per-finding scores 0-10 and aggregate posture). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scanning tools like scan_security.

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 provides clear context: use after obtaining findings from any scanner. It offers verbosity options to control output detail. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though sibling differentiation is implicit.

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