pt_cyber_search_advisories

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behaviors. It mentions return data (severity, products, CVEs) but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error cases. It does not contradict annotations (none provided).

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and result. Every sentence is meaningful 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?

Although no output schema exists, the description covers the main return fields (severity, products, CVE). For a simple search tool, it is fairly complete, but missing details on pagination or empty results.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; the schema already describes query format and severity filter. No augmented semantics.

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 searches CNCS security advisories and specifies the output includes severity, affected products, and CVE references. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pt_cyber_search_guidance' by focusing on advisories.

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 usage for searching advisories but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'pt_cyber_search_guidance' or 'pt_cyber_get_advisory'. No when-not or alternative hints.

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