get_usem_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the data source (aggregate/stats API) and that counts are exact, which matters for trusting the numbers. It also implicitly defines 'open' for the top-risk list. With no output schema, enumerating the three result components is valuable.

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 sentences, no filler, and the payload (what the summary contains) is front-loaded ahead of the implementation note about the stats API.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter dashboard tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and why the counts are trustworthy. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that the top-risk list size is controlled by the `top` param, so an agent must read the schema to discover that knob.

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% and the single `top` parameter documents its own default (5) and max (50). The description never mentions `top` at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Summarize') plus the exact resource ('USEM posture') and enumerates the three things returned: VI counts by state, remediation task counts by state, and top-risk open VIs. This clearly separates it from listing siblings like list_vulnerable_items or list_remediation_tasks, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of the aggregate (stats) API for 'exact counts' signals this is the overview/rollup tool rather than a record-listing tool. There is no explicit 'use this when you want a summary instead of a list' statement and no stated exclusions.

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