vulncheck_cpe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the purpose and usefulness, with no disclosure of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format. For a search tool, basic read-only behavior can be inferred but is not explicitly stated.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose. Highly 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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and use case. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of CVE IDs or details), which would be helpful for an agent. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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% with a clear description and example for the single parameter 'cpe'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, so this score 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Search' and resource 'vulnerabilities by CPE string', and specifies the context 'via VulnCheck'. Does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like cpe_search or cpe_match, but the unique combination of CPE and VulnCheck implies a distinct focus.

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?

Implied usage is clear ('finding all CVEs affecting a specific software version'), but there is no guidance on when not to use this tool or explicit alternatives among the many sibling tools. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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