cve_prioritize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the input (list of CVEs) and the components of the risk score, but does not specify output format, how the score is computed, or whether the tool has side effects. It is reasonable but incomplete.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and mechanism without unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence adds value.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more detail on the return value (e.g., format of the ranked list) to be fully complete. It does specify that 'Higher score = patch first', which gives a hint, but lacks details on how the list is returned.

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 for the single parameter 'cves', and the description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides (list of CVE IDs). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: ranking CVEs by exploitation risk, and lists the specific signals combined (CVSS, EPSS, KEV, weaponization). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual signals (e.g., epss_score, kev_check).

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 for prioritization ('Rank a list... patch first') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like epss_score or exploit_search for individual CVEs. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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