contrastapi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Lookup' but not guaranteed), what data source is queried, rate limits, or what fields are returned in the response structure.

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 extremely brief at two words, this constitutes under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The title-case fragment functions as a header rather than an explanatory sentence, failing to earn its place by conveying actionable information about tool behavior.

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 absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate for a security intelligence tool. It fails to prepare an agent to construct valid inputs or interpret vulnerability data outputs, despite the apparent simplicity of a single-parameter lookup operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the required cve_id parameter, and the description offers no compensatory guidance on expected input format (e.g., 'CVE-2021-1234' syntax), validation constraints, or whether partial matching is supported. The agent has no semantic information about this parameter.

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 Lookup' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what specific CVE data is retrieved (e.g., severity, description, references) or how it differs from siblings like cve_search, cve_recent, or cve_kev. It fails to specify that this retrieves details for a specific CVE ID versus searching or listing.

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 is provided on when to prefer this tool over the nine related security intelligence siblings, particularly cve_search which likely has overlapping functionality. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a valid CVE ID format, or when lookup might fail versus return empty results.

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