Hacker Bob public records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description reinforces the read-only nature and adds useful context about covering capabilities, links, and boundaries, though it does not describe the output shape or other behavioral details.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler words. It is reasonably front-loaded with 'read-only' and the main object, although the phrasing is somewhat awkward and could be more directly 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?

With no output schema, the description should at least suggest what the returned result contains. It names the expected content areas (API, MCP capabilities, links, boundaries), which is useful, but it does not state the response format or anything about how the agent should consume it.

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, so there is nothing the description needs to add about parameter meaning or formats. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parametric surface to document.

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 names the action and scope: it describes the read-only public API, MCP capabilities, links, and boundaries relevant to records interfaces. This distinguishes it from the sibling CVE record tools. It would be stronger with a verb like 'Returns' or 'Gets', but the intent is still clear.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or provide any exclusions. The phrase about separating records interfaces from the local assessment runtime gives some context, but there is no explicit selection guidance.

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?

The annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what fields appear in a successful result and explicitly caveats that the upstream URL is included 'when available'. It does not describe behavior for unknown identifiers or auth, but annotations carry the safety burden well.

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 informative sentence that leads with the core action and outcome, then lists the key return fields. No words are wasted, and the essential 'by identifier' scoping is up front.

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 single-record read-only getter, the description is quite complete: it names the identified, the returned context, and one conditional absence. Missing behavior around invalid or not-found identifiers is a minor gap, especially with no output schema present.

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 schema covers the sole parameter recordId completely with a pattern and an example. The description reinforces that the record is retrieved by identifier but does not add any semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 specific action—'Return one cleared Hacker Bob CVE record by identifier'—and describes what is included. The singular 'one' and reference to a specific record immediately distinguishes this from the plural list and search tools among its siblings.

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 clearly implies this tool is for fetching a single record when an identifier is available, but it does not explicitly say when to use the list or search siblings instead. There is no exclusionary guidance such as 'when you don't have a CVE ID, use search instead'.

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by disclosing the 'cleared' status constraint and cursor-based pagination semantics, which helps an agent understand traversal expectations.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then specifies pagination and filters concisely. Every phrase contributes useful information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema and read-only annotations, the description covers scope, pagination, and filters well; an agent can construct a valid request. It does not describe the response shape or explicitly route to sibling search/get tools, but given the simple list semantics and schema completeness, it remains sufficient.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of project/status filters and cursor pagination largely mirrors the schema and adds little new meaning. No new parameter semantics such as ordering, defaults, or interactions are provided.

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 explicitly names the verb (List), the resource (cleared public Hacker Bob CVE records), and includes the core behaviors (cursor pagination and optional project/status filters). It is clearly differentiated from siblings such as get_public_cve_record and search_public_cve_records by the listing action and naming.

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 this tool is for paginated enumeration of public CVE records with filters, which is a reasonable usage signal. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer list_public_cve_records over search_public_cve_records or get_public_cve_record, leaving some routing ambiguity to the agent.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that no assessment target is contacted, which is a valuable safety guarantee beyond the annotations. It also clarifies the records are 'cleared' public records, adding scope information not present in the schema or annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the search dimensions and safety constraint into the remainder. Every clause contributes useful information with no wasted words.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the searchable parameters, the publication status filter, and the no-target-contact guarantee. A small gap is that it does not mention paging behavior or default counts, though limit has a default documented in the schema. Overall, an agent can safely and correctly invoke it based on this description plus annotations.

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%, with query and limit already documented in the input schema. The description largely restates the query semantics (search by CVE identifier, project name, publication status), and the schema already says 'Text to match against CVE identifiers, project names, and publication status.' Thus the description adds limited new meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('cleared public Hacker Bob CVE records') plus the search dimensions (CVE identifier, open-source project name, publication status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_public_cve_record and list_public_cve_records, which imply fetching or enumerating rather than searching.

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 specifies the searchable fields and the behavioral constraint of 'without contacting any assessment target,' providing clear context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling get_public_cve_record or list_public_cve_records, so it stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions.

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