circl_cve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions no API key required, which is helpful, but omits rate limits, data freshness, or response size. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential context: data returned and authentication requirement. It lacks details on response format or pagination, but for a simple lookup tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Parameter coverage is 100% via schema, and the description adds an example format ('CVE-2024-3400'). This provides minimal added value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'CVE details from CIRCL'. It lists specific data returned (CAPEC attack patterns, vulnerable products, access/impact vectors), which distinguishes it from siblings like nvd_get or osv_get that provide different details.

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 implies usage when you need CIRCL-specific CVE details and notes 'No API key required.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cve_enrich or nvd_get, nor does it provide when-not-use guidance.

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