vulnerability__explain_cves

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context about using VMAAS and explains the meaning of 'affected_packages', enhancing transparency beyond the annotation's simple read hint.

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 somewhat repetitive ('Explain why CVEs...' appears twice) and could be more concise. However, it is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured coherently.

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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, required inputs, and even suggests a next step (Remediations). It provides complete context for a tool explaining CVEs per system.

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 coverage is 100% with examples for both parameters. The description adds context about needing system UUID from inventory and CVEs, but this doesn't significantly augment the semantic meaning already provided by the schema.

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 explains why CVEs affect the environment, detailing affected packages and fix info. It uses specific verbs like 'explain' and references VMAAS, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list CVEs or systems.

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 mentions prerequisites (system UUID and CVEs) and suggests using the Remediations tool for updates. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like vulnerability__get_cve_systems or vulnerability__get_cves.

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