get_cve_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It comprehensively explains that the tool is local-first and deterministic, does not fetch external data itself, returns ready-to-run curl commands instead, is subject to the CYBERSEC_MCP_ALLOW_EXTERNAL policy, and requires clearing the authorization-gate skill before testing. This is far beyond minimal transparency.

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 tightly structured: a one-line purpose, then input/output behavior, then critical caveats about external data and authorization. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or filler, and the most important constraints are front-loaded.

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 one parameter, an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers all essential operational context: what results are returned, local-first deterministic behavior, external-data handling via curl commands, policy dependency, and the authorization gate. An agent has enough guidance to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its outputs.

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 fully describes the single 'cve' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds valuable concrete examples (CVE-2021-44228, log4shell, eternalblue, zerologon, printnightmare) and reinforces accepted formats, making parameter usage clearer than the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Map a CVE to the toolkit's tools, skills, and modules, plus live-lookup commands.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by centering on a CVE identifier/nickname and the mapping output, rather than generic tool/module info or CTF/bounty suggestions.

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 use this tool: when you have a CVE id or known nickname and want curated exploitation skills, mapped tools, and relevant modules. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the local-first deterministic behavior and live-lookup command pattern make the intended use apparent.

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