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, yet it states nothing about the operation type (read-only retrieval), return format, pagination behavior, or rate limits. While the parameter schema implies CVE retrieval, the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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 consists of two words, but this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails the test that 'every sentence should earn its place' by providing zero actionable information to an agent.

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 sibling CVE tools requiring differentiation, zero required parameters that need contextual guidance, and no output schema or annotations to provide metadata, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand what data is returned or how to interpret results.

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% (both 'hours' and 'limit' have descriptions), establishing a baseline of 3. The description 'Cve Recent' adds no parameter syntax details, validation rules, or usage examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 Recent' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name (cve_recent) with different casing. It lacks a specific verb, fails to describe what the tool actually retrieves (e.g., a list of CVE entries), and does not distinguish from siblings like cve_lookup, cve_search, or cve_kev.

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 sibling CVE tools (cve_kev, cve_lookup, cve_search). There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent select this over alternatives.

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