get_cve_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieve') and lists the return contents, but it does not disclose error handling, availability, authentication, or behavior for invalid CVE IDs. This is adequate but lacks depth for full transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Retrieve full details') and efficiently lists key return items without unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what information it retrieves. It misses edge-case behavior like not-found or invalid ID handling, but the tool's simplicity means this is nearly 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?

The schema description already fully covers the single parameter cve_id with an example format ('CVE-2024-1234'). The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so with 100% schema coverage, 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 function: 'Retrieve full details for a specific CVE' and enumerates specific data elements (severity, CVSS scores, affected releases, package state, mitigations, references). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_cves (searching) and get_csaf_details/OVAL tools (different data domains).

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 when to use the tool ('for a specific CVE') and what it returns, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to sibling tools.

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