CVE Advisory Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the curated framework-specific database and the urgency after CVE announcements, which goes beyond the schema. There is no contradiction with annotations. It doesn't mention whether network access or updates are needed, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second differentiates it from npm audit, and the next line provides a critical usage trigger. The examples are concise and useful for an agent to recognize natural-language requests. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only check tool, the description covers purpose, scope, urgency, and example invocations. All parameters are documented in the schema, and annotations provide the safety context. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the examples, though a brief note about the return format would improve completeness further.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds example usage like 'Show CVE database' which maps to show_db, but does not enrich the meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a resource ('projects') and a defined scope ('known framework CVEs' with a list of frameworks). It also differentiates itself from npm audit by saying 'Goes beyond npm audit.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like depsonar_audit or depsonar_live_cve, so it stops short of 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 gives a strong, explicit usage trigger: 'CRITICAL after any CVE announcement. Run immediately when new CVEs are published.' This clearly states when the tool should be used. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative sibling tools, which prevents a 5.

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