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 offers no information about side effects, external API calls, rate limits, or response format. It does not explain what EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) represents or what the returned score signifies.

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 the two-word description is technically brief, it suffers from under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as every sentence must earn its place and this provides zero actionable information. The brevity reflects incompleteness, not efficient communication.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide the minimum necessary context for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly. It omits the essential behavioral and semantic details required for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 one required parameter (cve_id) with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description fails to compensate by explaining the expected format (e.g., CVE-YYYY-NNNN) or providing an example. No parameter semantics are provided beyond the property name.

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 'Epss Score' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with different capitalization and spacing. It fails to specify the action performed (e.g., retrieve, calculate, lookup) or distinguish from sibling CVE tools like cve_lookup or cve_search.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the thirteen sibling tools available, particularly the other CVE-related functions like cve_lookup or cve_kev. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected use cases, or selection criteria.

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