lc_list_vulnerability_cve_packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list', implying read-only, but does not mention permissions, pagination behavior, or that it requires a valid oid and cve. No side effects are stated, but the lack of detail is insufficient.

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 of 8 words, very concise. It front-loads the key action and object. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it is not ideal. Still, for conciseness alone, it scores high.

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 has 7 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the role of oid, the pagination mechanism, or the return format. A minimal description should at least mention that oid is an organization identifier and that results can be paginated.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the required parameters oid and cve, nor optional parameters like limit, cursor, sort_by, sort_asc, or include_enrichment. The only hint is that cve is a CVE identifier, but oid is entirely unexplained.

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 package/version pairs affected by one CVE. It specifies the resource and the filter, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lc_list_vulnerability_cve_hosts (which lists hosts) and lc_list_vulnerability_cves (which lists CVEs).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. For example, it does not explain that this tool is for listing packages for a specific CVE, while lc_list_vulnerability_cve_hosts lists hosts for a CVE. The description is silent on prerequisites or context.

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