get_author

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

Annotations indicate read-only, safe, idempotent operation. Description adds return details (author name, handle, count, start date, paginated exploit list with CVE context) without contradicting 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?

Two concise sentences front-load purpose and usage, with no redundant information. Every sentence is valuable.

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?

Despite no output schema, description fully explains return values and pagination, meeting completeness for a simple tool with one parameter and good annotations.

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 covers parameter with description (100% coverage). Description adds no new meaning beyond example usage, warranting baseline score of 3.

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 gets an author's profile with all their exploits, listing return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like list_authors and search_exploits by focusing on a specific researcher.

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?

Explicitly advises use when asked about a specific researcher, with an example ('show me all exploits by Chocapikk'), leaving no doubt about when to apply.

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