List Node.js vulnerabilities

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: results are sorted by severity and publish date, data comes from periodic scans and may lag, an empty list only means the latest scan found no vulnerabilities, and patchable/patching-in-progress flags have operational consequences. This goes far 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the opening states the primary function, followed by sorting/filter behavior, patch-related interpretation, data freshness caveats, and plan availability. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly communicates the kind of returned data (advisory metadata, severity, CVSS, CVE, advisory URL, patchable flags), result ordering, empty-list semantics, and plan restrictions. An agent has enough context to correctly interpret and use the response without further guessing.

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%, so the parameter definitions already carry most of the weight. The description additionally references the severities filter, matching the schema's 'Severities to filter by.' It does not add extra meaning to username or domain beyond their schema entries, which is acceptable given the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool 'Lists known npm package vulnerabilities detected on a Node.js website' and distinguishes it from the related patch endpoint by explaining what list results enable. It identifies the resource, the action, and the enriched advisory metadata, making it easy for an agent to differentiate from sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to call this tool and explains the severities filter. It also references the Patch Node.js Vulnerabilities endpoint for auto-fixing patchable vulnerabilities, implicitly steering agents to the correct sibling. It stops short of explicitly stating exclusions or 'use this instead of X' scenarios, but the usage context is strong.

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