get_cve_references

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool aggregates from multiple sources (NVD, CIRCL, OSV, EPSS, GitHub Advisory), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential latency, failure behavior, or output structure nuances, leaving behavioral transparency partial.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and data sources. Every element earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 retrieval tool with three well-documented parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's role in collecting references from multiple sources. Although no output schema exists, the output_format parameter and the mention of a reference list cover the return expectations adequately. A minor gap is the lack of detail on what constitutes a reference, but this is not critical.

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 has 100% parameter descriptions with clear semantics for cve_id, sources, and output_format. The description adds context about the purpose (guide writing) but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 function: it accepts a CVE ID and returns a list of reference materials for writing a CVE guide, sourced from multiple origins. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tool get_cve_summary, which focuses on summaries rather than references.

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 context ('CVE 안내서 작성용' - for writing CVE guides) but does not explicitly contrast with get_cve_summary or provide when-to-use guidance. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool mentions, making it minimally adequate but not explicit.

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