get_cve_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by noting the summary is based on NVD and EPSS, suggesting a data-source dependency and a lightweight summary nature. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, update frequency, or any side-effect-like behavior, which is a gap for a read operation without annotations.

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 concise sentence plus a matching parenthetical, efficiently conveying the core purpose and data sources. Every element serves a purpose, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned summary contains and how it differs from the sibling references tool. It fails to describe the expected fields or structure of the output, and it does not mention typical usage scenarios, making the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.

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 cve_id with a description ('조회할 CVE ID'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter details such as format, examples, or accepted patterns, so it provides no added meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 returns a summary of core CVE information, with a specific verb (반환합니다) and resource (CVE ID 핵심 정보). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_cve_references, but the 'summary' versus 'references' distinction is implied.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_cve_references or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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