cvss_parse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It correctly states the tool parses, explains, calculates, and summarizes, which covers its core behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, validation of input format, or any side effects (e.g., network calls). Still, for a parse tool, this is fairly transparent.

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 consists of two short, direct sentences with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core action ('Parse a CVSS v3.x vector string') and follows with specific details about the output. 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 tool's low complexity and the schema's full coverage of the single parameter, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and output. It mentions the version (v3.x), the breakdown metric, score calculation, and summary. It could be improved by noting whether the tool validates the input or handles errors, but overall it is complete for its context.

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 the single parameter 'vector' with a 100% description including an example. The description adds value by explaining what the tool does with that vector (breakdown, score, summary), but the parameter's meaning is already clear from the schema. 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 specifies the action (parse), the resource (CVSS v3.x vector string), and the output (human-readable breakdown with metric explanations, base score, plain-English summary). It distinguishes itself from siblings, which focus on CVE, CWE, EPSS, or other 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 when a CVSS vector string is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. No comparison to siblings is provided.

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