cisa_kev

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only catalog lookup but does not state permissions, rate limits, data freshness mechanics, or what the detail parameter changes; the output schema helps with return values but not invocation behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, immediately establishing the resource and temporal scope.

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 catalog lookup with an output schema, the core data source is clear. However, the undocumented detail parameter and absent usage or behavioral context leave meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 sole parameter, detail, has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The default 'short' is visible in the schema, but no allowed values or effect of changing detail are explained, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 a specific resource, the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and its scope, actively exploited vulnerabilities in the wild now. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb, but the resource is unmistakable and no sibling tool covers KEV data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The phrase 'right now' hints at current exploitation data, but no context is given for the detail option or appropriate use cases.

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