cvss_parse

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the parsing and calculation behavior adequately but does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid vectors), authentication needs, or side effects. Since it's a parse tool, read-only nature is assumed but not stated.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the main purpose, followed by specific outputs and version support. 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?

For a simple one-parameter parser, the description covers the core functionality well. However, it omits the output format (e.g., JSON structure), which would help the agent understand how to use the result. No output schema is provided, so description could compensate.

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 single parameter 'vector' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with an example. The description adds context about what the tool does with the vector but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Parse', the resource 'CVSS v3.x or v4.0 vector string', and the outcomes: 'human-readable breakdown', 'calculates the base score', and 'plain-English summary'. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on CVE, CPE, and vulnerability 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 implies usage for interpreting CVSS vectors but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., for looking up CVSS in other tools). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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