scan_vulnerabilities

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds '[Write]' which is redundant. It does not disclose whether the scan is asynchronous, triggers background jobs, requires permissions, or any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single sentence plus a bracketed note, which is very concise and front-loaded. However, it may be under-specified, which slightly reduces effectiveness. Still, it earns its place without fluff.

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 lacks essential context for a trigger action. It does not explain what happens after triggering (e.g., job ID, async behavior), expected duration, or how to retrieve results. Given no output schema and limited annotations, the description is incomplete.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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?

Description clearly states it triggers a vulnerability scan for CIs or groups. The verb 'Trigger' and resource 'vulnerability scan' are specific. It partially distinguishes from siblings like 'get_vulnerability' and 'list_vulnerabilities' by implying initiation rather than retrieval, but could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare to siblings like 'run_discovery_scan' or 'list_vulnerabilities'. This is a significant omission given the many sibling tools.

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