nvd_get

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

With no annotations, the description clearly discloses the output content (CVSS, severity, etc.), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention potential rate limits or authentication needs. The transparency is good but could be more thorough.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's function.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and output. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or response format details, but it is largely complete for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (cveId) with an example. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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: 'Get full details for a specific CVE from NVD' and lists the specific details returned (CVSS, severity, CWE, affected products, references, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nvd_search (searching) and cve_by_product (by product).

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 fetching a single CVE by ID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context of sibling tools makes the differentiation obvious, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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