vulnerability__get_cve_systems

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

The description includes the phrase 'This is a report' which implies read-only behavior, consistent with the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true'. No destructive or side effects are mentioned, and there is no contradiction. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 three sentences long, with the second sentence ('This is a report...') being somewhat redundant with the first. The third sentence directs to an OpenAPI spec, which is helpful but could be integrated. It is adequately concise but not maximally efficient.

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 tool has an output schema (as per context) and full parameter description in the input schema, the description provides sufficient context for the agent to understand the tool's basic function. It does not explain pagination or sorting implications, but those are covered by the schema. The tool is simple and the description is complete enough.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 6 parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description is not required to repeat schema content.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of systems affected by a given CVE'. It directly differentiates the tool from siblings like 'vulnerability__get_cve' (which gets CVE details) and 'vulnerability__get_systems' (which gets all systems) by focusing on a specific CVE. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to obtain a list of affected systems for a given CVE. While it does not state when not to use it, the context is clear given the sibling tools. The lack of exclusion criteria is acceptable as the tool's scope is well-defined.

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