contrastapi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data source is queried (CISA KEV catalog), what the return format is, or whether there are rate limits. The two-word description provides zero behavioral context.

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?

While brief (two words), this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The description fails to front-load critical information about the tool's function, wasting the opportunity to distinguish it from sibling CVE tools. Every 'sentence' (there is effectively one fragment) fails to earn its place due to lack of informational content.

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 multiple CVE-related siblings and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what distinguishes KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities) data from general CVE data, what the optional limit parameter controls the return of, or what format results take. For a tool with naming overlap in its family, contextual differentiation is essential but missing.

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 has 100% description coverage for its single 'limit' parameter ('Max results'). Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional semantic value regarding the parameter's usage or pagination behavior, but does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 'Cve Kev' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with different spacing/capitalization. It fails to specify what action the tool performs (retrieves, lists, checks) or what 'KEV' (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities) means. No distinction is made from sibling tools like cve_lookup, cve_search, or cve_recent.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the four other CVE-related siblings (cve_lookup, cve_recent, cve_search, cve_lookup). No prerequisites, conditions, or alternative selection criteria are mentioned.

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