find_vulnerability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only.' and describes the return behavior: returns the first hit or null if nothing matches. It lists all returned fields (title, description, CVSS scores, etc.). No contradictions with annotations. The description fully discloses the tool's behavior and effects.

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 well-structured: an introductory sentence, a paragraph explaining the source parameter logic, a line stating 'Read-only.' and then a bulleted list of return fields. Every sentence is informative; there is no redundancy or fluff. The size is appropriate for the complexity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, optional source inference) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the input parameters, the logic of source resolution, and the output fields. There are no gaps in context for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully explains both parameters: vuln_id with examples ('CVE-2024-1234', 'GHSA-xxxx-yyyy-zzzz') and source with a list of possible values and the default inference behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type/required fields.

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 purpose: 'Fetch the full detail record of a vulnerability.' It goes beyond a simple verb+noun by explaining the behavior with and without the source parameter, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_vulnerability' (fetch vs. search). The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'full detail record' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear guidance on when to include the source parameter (e.g., 'When source is given ... fetches directly') and when to omit it (source inferred from id prefix). It explains the fallback behavior (probes candidates, returns first hit or null). However, it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_vulnerability' or other alternatives.

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