vulnerability__get_cves

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's disclosure of returning 'CVE metadata, how many systems are affected by each CVE, and more' adds some output context but no significant new behavioral traits (e.g., pagination limits, authorization). The description does not contradict annotations, and the disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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, which is moderately concise. The second sentence ('This provides an overview...') largely restates the first sentence, adding redundancy. The third sentence refers to an OpenAPI spec, which is a weak crutch. It could be condensed to one or two sentences without losing meaning.

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 11 optional parameters with many filters, the description is quite generic. It states it's an overview but doesn't hint at the extensive filtering, sorting, or pagination capabilities (though schema descriptions exist). An agent might underestimate the tool's flexibility. The description is minimally complete for a basic understanding but not comprehensive.

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 high (91%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'CVE metadata' and 'systems affected' but does not explain how to use filters like cvss_from, impact, or known_exploit. The description does not compensate for the one undocumented parameter (filter_).

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 'Get list of CVEs affecting the account' with a specific verb and resource. It indicates an overview of vulnerabilities across the entire system inventory, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vulnerability__get_cve (single CVE details) and vulnerability__get_cve_systems (systems per CVE). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, so it's not a 5.

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 says 'Use this endpoint to get an overview' but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given siblings like vulnerability__get_cve and vulnerability__get_cve_systems, the lack of explicit exclusions or comparisons leaves an agent without clear decision criteria.

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