Sync EPSS values

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds context by explaining that EPSS is a likelihood estimate, not a severity score, and that the operation refreshes values from an external source (FIRST). This goes beyond the structured data without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope; the second provides essential context on EPSS. 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 simple one-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the nature of the data. It does not describe error cases or network dependencies, but the openWorldHint annotation covers external interaction. A minor gap is not explaining the output shape, but that is handled by the output schema.

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%, but the description implicitly describes the parameter by stating 'for 1 to 100 explicit CVE IDs', which matches the schema's minItems/maxItems and pattern. It adds the semantic nuance of 'explicit' IDs, meaning no wildcards, which is not in the schema. Per guidelines, baseline 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Refresh') and resource ('FIRST EPSS probability and percentile values for 1 to 100 explicit CVE IDs'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like vuln_sync_kev (KEV values) and vuln_sync_recent_cves (recent CVEs) by focusing on EPSS for explicit IDs.

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 used when refreshing EPSS scores for specific CVEs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like vuln_get_cve (which might also return EPSS) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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