vulnerability__get_cve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by listing the specific metadata returned (CVSS scores, severity, advisories, known exploits, etc.), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior without contradiction.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It clearly lists the metadata items but has some redundancy (e.g., 'description' mentioned twice). Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 (as per context signals) and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, key parameters, and returned data fields adequately. It references the OpenAPI spec for more details. No major gaps for a read-only tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are well-described in the schema (cve with example, advisory_available with boolean string interpretation). The description does not add any new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 purpose: 'Get details about specific CVE.' It lists the specific metadata returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like vulnerability__get_cves which likely lists CVEs. The verb 'Get' combined with 'details' precisely defines the action and resource.

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 use when needing detailed CVE information, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vulnerability__get_cves or vulnerability__get_cve_systems. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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