get_cve_findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the included fields (CVSS, CISA KEV) but does not disclose any side effects, read-only nature, pagination behavior, or potential errors. It lacks detail about return structure and operational constraints, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. The inclusion of a business requirement parenthetical ('업무요건') adds noise but does not significantly hinder clarity. It is efficient and direct.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return format, read-only behavior, and how this relates to sibling tools. It only mentions field content, omitting pagination details, usage context, and the distinction from 'get_filtered_cve_findings'. An agent would still face uncertainty when selecting or calling this tool.

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 only parameter 'first' is fully described in the schema (default 20), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not mention any parameters or add semantic depth beyond the schema, so it adds no extra value here. 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 queries CVE vulnerability findings for endpoints, mentioning CVSS v3 score/severity and CISA KEV inclusion. This is a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_filtered_cve_findings', leaving some ambiguity about the unfiltered nature implied by the name.

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 the filtered alternative, nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name.

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