exploit_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it searches GitHub and returns sorted repos, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, scope (all of GitHub or curated), or error handling. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 brief (two sentences, 22 words) and front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured by separating purpose and result. Still, it is efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It states 'returns repositories with proof-of-concept code, sorted by stars', which is the core information but lacks details like fields returned or pagination. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 'cve' is fully described in the schema with an example. The description adds context by explaining the parameter is used to search for exploits on GitHub, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 'search', the resource 'public PoC exploits and exploit code for a CVE on GitHub', and the result 'returns repositories with proof-of-concept code, sorted by stars'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on CVE enrichment, analysis, or listing.

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 for finding exploit code for a specific CVE, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like cve_enrich or cve_report. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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