Get one CVE

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that setting refresh=true triggers an external fetch from official endpoints, and warns that advisory text is untrusted data. These are behavioral details not captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). No contradiction with annotations.

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 consists of three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the primary function, explaining the refresh behavior, and providing a critical security caution. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists (covering return values) and annotations are provided, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter behavior, and a security note. It could briefly mention behavior when the CVE is not in cache or error handling, but overall it is complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the refresh parameter (explaining its effect) and implies cve_id is a standard CVE identifier via the pattern. This is helpful but not exhaustive; for example, the format of cve_id is left to the schema pattern, and no guidance on possible values or error states is given.

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 'Return one cached CVE' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vuln_search_cves (multiple results) and vuln_sync_recent_cves (sync operation). The title 'Get one CVE' reinforces this specificity.

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 explains when to use the refresh parameter ('fetch its canonical CVE.org record and NVD enrichment'), providing clear context for parameter behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of siblings (e.g., when searching or syncing is more appropriate), but the sibling names imply the distinction.

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