get_cve_info

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: local-first/deterministic behavior, that it returns ready-to-run run_tool("curl", ...) commands rather than performing network fetches, that external lookups are gated by CYBERSEC_MCP_ALLOW_EXTERNAL, and that an authorization-gate skill must be cleared first. This explains the openWorldHint=false annotation and the safety profile rather than merely restating it.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then groups the input contract, return behavior, and safety prerequisite into distinct, information-dense paragraphs. No sentence is 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be enumerated, and the description still previews the return shape (skills, tools with install status, modules). It is complete for normal use, though it omits edge-case behavior such as an unknown or ambiguous CVE id.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by listing concrete nickname examples ('log4shell', 'eternalblue', 'zerologon', 'printnightmare') and the CVE-YYYY-NNNN form, which helps the agent normalize input beyond the schema's brief wording.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('map a CVE to the toolkit's tools, skills, and modules') and specifies the accepted input forms (CVE id or nickname). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like get_tool_info and get_module_info, which operate on the toolkit's own inventory rather than mapping an external CVE.

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?

Explains when it acts locally versus when it defers to curl commands, and names a hard prerequisite ('always clear the authorization-gate skill before testing'). It gives clear operating context but does not name an alternative tool for cases the caller might prefer instead.

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