get_vulnerability

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

The description makes the read-only nature clear by using 'get', but it does not disclose return format, whether the vulnerability object contains all fields, or any error/not-found behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description partially carries the transparency burden but leaves gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and target resource and is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is mostly complete, but 'detailed information' is vague and there is no output schema. It could state that the full vulnerability object is returned or mention any notable fields.

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?

The parameter vulnerability_id is fully described in the schema (UUID, unique identifier). The description adds little beyond 'specific vulnerability', which corresponds directly to the parameter. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific vulnerability' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('vulnerability'), and the phrase 'specific vulnerability' distinguishes it from list_vulnerabilities and get_vulnerability_discoveries. It clearly communicates the tool's core function.

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 implies usage when a user needs details for a single vulnerability by ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over list_vulnerabilities or get_vulnerability_discoveries. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are stated.

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