lv_cyber_get_advisory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and gives an example; it does not mention potential errors, authentication, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The name implies a safe get, but this is assumed from the verb and not explicitly stated.

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. It includes an example without redundancy, making it clear and efficient.

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 one-parameter get tool, the description is complete enough for selection and invocation. It lacks an explanation of the return value or error handling, but given the simple nature and no output schema, the description suffices.

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 only says 'CERT.LV advisory reference', but the description adds a concrete example format ('CERT-LV-A-2024-001'), which helps the agent construct valid input. This goes beyond the schema and adds meaningful parameter clarity.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a specific CERT.LV security advisory'), and the distinguishing parameter (by reference). It differentiates from sibling tools like search_advisories by emphasizing retrieval of a known reference 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 implies the tool is for when you have a specific reference, and the example format clarifies the expected input. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like search_advisories for queries without a reference.

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