get_vuln_details

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral transparency. Only states 'Get detailed information' with no mention of authentication, rate limits, or data source freshness. Output schema exists but is not referenced.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The Args line is slightly redundant but does not waste space. Could omit the Args line and rely on schema.

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?

Simple single-param tool with output schema, so description is adequate. Missing any notes on error cases or expected behavior for malformed IDs, which would be helpful but not critical.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. Provides an example CVE ID format but does not explain accepted patterns beyond the example. The param name 'cve_id' already implies a CVE identifier.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific vulnerability'. It implies uniqueness of CVE ID, distinguishing it from search_vulns which likely lists multiple vulnerabilities. However, no explicit differentiation from siblings.

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 on when to use vs. alternatives. Implies use when a specific CVE ID is known, but no mention of scenarios where alternative tools like search_vulns are more appropriate.

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