cvss_score_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the return content (base score, vector string, individual metrics) and the data source (NVD), but does not disclose error handling, performance, or what happens if the CVE is not found. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and output, followed by a concise justification of the data source. Every sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema covering return values, the description is fairly complete. It lacks only minor context like error scenarios or input format examples.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a CVE' but does not explain the cve_id parameter's format, required pattern, or any constraints. The minimal addition over the schema provides little value.

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 retrieves a detailed CVSS v3/v4 breakdown for a CVE, including base score, vector string, and individual metrics. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CVSS breakdown for a CVE'), and the mention of NVD distinguishes its data source from siblings.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., search_cve_by_id, bulk_cve_lookup). It only notes that it uses NVD, which implies richness but does not clarify selection criteria or alternatives.

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