osv_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'full vulnerability details' without specifying what that includes, and lacks information on authentication, rate limits, or potential errors. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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, no redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify return structure. 'Full vulnerability details' is vague. The tool is simple, but missing error handling info and a more precise output definition reduces completeness.

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 'id' with a basic description. The tool's description adds value by listing the accepted ID formats (e.g., 'GHSA-jfh8-c2jp-5v3q'), enhancing parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 retrieves full vulnerability details from OSV by ID, listing specific ID formats (OSV, GHSA, CVE, ecosystem-specific). This sets it apart from sibling tools like osv_batch (batch) and osv_query (search).

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 specifies the accepted ID formats, indicating when to use the tool (when you have a specific vulnerability ID). It implicitly distinguishes from batch and query tools but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives.

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