kev_check

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

Being a simple lookup without side effects, the description adequately conveys the tool's read-only behavior. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it is sufficient for this simple operation.

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 front-load the purpose and add relevant context about urgency. Every word serves a purpose; no fluff. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

The description covers the tool's input and purpose but does not specify the output format or error handling. Since there is no output schema, the agent might benefit from knowing whether it returns a boolean, list, or other structure. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the KEV catalog but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameter. It confirms the purpose but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 checks if CVEs are in CISA's KEV catalog, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like kev_search by focusing on membership checking.

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 provides context about KEV entries being actively exploited and requiring urgent patching, implying when this tool is useful. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools.

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