Get vulnerability

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states it retrieves data but does not mention error handling, authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the CVE is not found. The list of fields provides some context about the response, but the behavioral surface is minimal. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is reasonable.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and constraint. Every word adds value, with no filler.

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 single required parameter and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently explains when to use the tool and what data it returns. The mention of specific fields and exact CVE identifier covers the prerequisites. The output schema handles return structure.

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 input schema already provides a full description of cveId with an example. The tool description only restates 'exact CVE identifier,' adding no new semantic information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's action ('Retrieve one vulnerability') and the key constraint ('by its exact CVE identifier'), distinguishing it from sibling search_vulnerabilities. It also lists the specific fields the caller can access, which reinforces the purpose.

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 a single known CVE, saying 'exact CVE identifier' and listing details like score, status, and vendor. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, though the word 'exact' suggests searching is for unknown CVEs. This is a clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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