get_cve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes what data is fetched (CVSS, EPSS, etc.), conveying a read-only intent. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, though such transparency is less critical for a simple fetch operation.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key data items. Every phrase adds value, with no extraneous information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description serves as the output specification. It lists multiple data fields (CVSS, EPSS, etc.), which is sufficient. Minor gaps include no mention of response size or pagination (not needed for a single CVE), and no explicit note about error handling for invalid CVE IDs.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds global context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. No additional format or constraint details are given for the required cve_id or optional verbose.

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 that the tool fetches full intelligence for a single CVE, listing specific data points like CVSS, EPSS, CISA KEV status, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_cves which presumably handles multiple CVEs, and list_trending_attacks which focuses on trending attacks rather than individual CVEs.

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 usage for fetching data on a single CVE, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_cves for bulk or list_trending_attacks for trending). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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