cve-intelligence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds valuable context: absence semantics ('a null field means this dataset holds no such record'), field meaning ('fixed = first patched build; affected_through = last VULNERABLE build'), and auth behavior. It does not cover rate limits or errors, but covers key nuances.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: content enumeration, auth note, and absence semantics. It is longer than the minimal but information-dense, so it's well-structured.

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 lists the main components of the returned intelligence record and explains critical data semantics, especially for fixed/affected_through and null handling. Since there is no output schema, this level of detail is important and largely sufficient, though it omits fields like error handling or pagination (which are less relevant for a single-record fetch).

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 input schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with an example. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides—it reiterates that the tool is for one CVE but doesn't provide additional format details. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Full intelligence record for one CVE' – a specific verb + resource. It enumerates the content areas (CVSS, EPSS, KEV, remote-detection, Sigma, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_cves (search vs. specific fetch) and get_updates.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a full record for a specific CVE. It provides authentication guidance ('No key required over MCP...') and clarifies the semantics of fixed/affected_through. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds value by detailing the report's license (CC BY 4.0) and the citation requirement, which are behavioral expectations. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it describe any side effects or prerequisites. For a 'get' tool, the read-only nature is implied but not explicitly confirmed.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence packs detailed information about the report's contents into a list, and the second states the citation. It front-loads the resource name and avoids fluff, though the first sentence is a bit dense and could be structured as a clearer action statement (e.g., 'Returns the...'). Overall, every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It thoroughly explains what the report contains, its license, and how to cite it. However, it does not explicitly mention the return format (e.g., plain text, JSON, HTML) or whether the citation is mandatory for execution, but the core purpose and expected output are well covered.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately provides no parameter-specific details since there are none to describe.

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 specifies the resource ('The Defender Scoreboard report') and its content (exploited vs detectable vs patchable, figures with method, caveat, denominator, corpus block, method-change notes). The verb 'get' is provided by the tool name, making the action obvious. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_cve, get_updates, and search_cves by focusing on the scoreboard report.

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 when to use this tool—if you need scoreboard statistics or the report—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or contraindications. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the usage guidance is only inferred from the content description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors such as 'strictly-after' semantics, the use of next_cursor for continuation, and that events for withdrawn CVE ids are omitted. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but these are not core for a simple stream.

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 the tool's purpose, followed by concise pagination instructions and an edge-case note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (pagination, time semantics, filtered events), the description covers the essential workflow. It lacks a description of the response format (no output schema) and limit defaults, but the provided details are sufficient for core usage.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'since' and the cursor (via next_cursor), but does not describe 'limit' or elaborate on the 'type' enum beyond listing the values. The enum values are self-explanatory, so some weight is given, but the gap keeps this at a 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?

The description clearly defines the tool as a publication change stream, listing the specific timestamp fields it returns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cve and search_cves, which are for individual lookups or searching, not streaming changes.

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?

It gives explicit usage instructions: 'Pass since (YYYY-MM-DD, strictly-after) on the first call, then the returned next_cursor to continue.' This is clear context for how to paginate, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when to use this over them.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so well by explaining filter-only ordering (KEV-first then EPSS), the nuance of fix=0 ('computed-and-none-held'), and format constraints. However, it omits details like authentication, rate limits, or return format, which prevents a 5.

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 carries essential value. It front-loads the core action and then systematically explains filters without redundancy. It's concise for the complexity it covers.

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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters, no annotation, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all parameters, query modes, and ordering behavior. The only missing element is return payload details, but for a search tool this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by defining every parameter. It specifies formats (CWE-nnn, '2024,2025', 'critical,high'), enum semantics (kev, ransomware, detect, fix), ranges (epss_gte 0..1, limit 1..50), and clarifies subtle meanings like detect and fix. This exceeds the schema's bare property listings.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the catalog.' It is distinct from siblings like get_cve (single record retrieval) and get_scoreboard (scoreboard-specific), making the search function unambiguous.

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 through its detailed filter explanation but never explicitly states when to use search_cves versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this instead of get_cve when...' or any exclusions, so it relies on inference.

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