cve_prioritize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the combination of CVSS, EPSS, and KEV, but lacks details on limitations (e.g., data availability, rate limits). The behavior is adequately described but not exhaustively.

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 with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, efficiently conveying the tool's functionality and output interpretation.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand input and expected result. It could specify output format, but the lack is acceptable given simplicity.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description of 'cves'. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies. It does not enhance the schema's already clear meaning.

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 tool ranks CVEs by exploitation risk, combining multiple factors. It uses a specific verb (Rank) and resource (list of CVEs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cve_compare and cve_enrich by focusing on prioritization.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the function is clear, there is no guidance on exclusions or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name alone.

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