attackerkb_assess

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data and specifies the nature of the output (ratings, analysis), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like API key requirements, rate limits, or data freshness, leaving some behavioral traits unclear.

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 is two sentences long, immediately stating the tool's purpose and the specific type of data it returns. Every word is informative with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and a clear resource.

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?

For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and the kind of information it provides. It could hint at how the ratings are represented or any constraints, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand its capability.

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% coverage with a single parameter cveId described as 'CVE ID (e.g., 'CVE-2024-3400')'. The tool description reiterates that the tool works for CVEs but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides adequate description.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving community assessments for a CVE from AttackerKB, specifying the data includes attacker value, exploitability ratings, and Rapid7 analysis. This distinctively sets it apart from sibling tools that query other CVE databases or provide different types of CVE data.

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 sibling tools like nvd_get or circl_cve. It does not mention contexts or prerequisites for using AttackerKB assessments, nor does it warn against misuse. Users must infer usage from the description alone.

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