vulnerability__get_cve

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true, but the description adds behavioral context by detailing the returned metadata (CVSS scores, severity, etc.) and referencing the OpenAPI spec for additional details. No contradiction with 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?

The description is moderately concise but includes a verbose list of metadata items. It starts with a clear summary and then lists returned fields, but could be more compact without losing clarity.

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 existence of an output schema and the description listing returned metadata, the tool is fairly well-documented. It also refers to the OpenAPI spec for further details, making it complete for a single CVE retrieval 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'advisory_available' parameter in more detail, but baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 details about a specific CVE, including identification, description, scores, and metadata. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vulnerability__get_cves (list CVEs) and vulnerability__get_cve_systems (get systems for a CVE).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what the tool does, without mentioning when not to use it or suggesting alternative tools for different scenarios.

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