cpe_match

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that the tool 'shows exactly which product versions are affected, including version ranges', it does not disclose key behavioral traits such as data source behavior, response format, limitations, error handling, or whether it might return partial results. The description is too vague to fully prepare an agent for invocation.

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 with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded: the first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes to understanding. It could potentially be slightly more concise by combining sentences, but overall it is efficient and to the point.

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 low complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description provides a basic idea of what the tool returns ('product versions, including version ranges'). However, it lacks details about pagination (limit parameter behavior), error handling for invalid CVE IDs, and the exact structure of the output. It is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters (cveId, limit) adequately described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not degrade but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'CPE match criteria for a specific CVE from NVD'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cpe_search (which is for general CPE search) and cve_by_product (which lists CVEs by product) by focusing on a single CVE and showing affected product versions with ranges.

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 the tool is used when you have a specific CVE and want to know which product versions are affected. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like cve_enrich or nvd_get, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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