List CVE sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (list) and scope (all registered plugins with status) but does not mention if any authentication is required, whether the list is cached, or what 'status' entails (e.g., enabled/disabled). This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects or constraints.

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 sentence that is succinct and front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits the structure or format of the return value. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what 'status' looks like (e.g., plugin IDs, names, enabled/disabled flags). This gap forces the agent to guess or risk misinterpreting the output.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters, the description need not add parameter-level details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not clutter with parameter info.

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 lists all registered CVE source plugins along with their status. It uses a specific verb ('list'), resource ('CVE source plugins'), and scope ('all'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'fetch_cve_from_all_sources' which retrieves data from sources rather than listing them.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. For a tool that lists sources, it would be helpful to indicate that this is for discovery before fetching CVEs from specific sources.

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