check-cve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the external source (NIST NVD) and the data returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, network dependency, error behavior, or that this is a read-only lookup.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and source before listing expected output fields. Every word contributes meaning and there is 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?

For a one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear picture of what the agent will get back and where the data comes from. Minor gaps like error handling and external service unpredictability prevent a perfect score.

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 100% and the parameter already includes a clear example ('CVE-2021-44228 (Log4Shell)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up'), names the resource ('CVE ID from NIST NVD'), and lists concrete return fields. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which address hashes, headers, WHOIS, payloads, and passwords.

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 intended use is implicit: call this when you have a CVE ID and want vulnerability details. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The schema's example hints at usage, but no direct guidance exists.

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