futurevuls_get_cves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states pagination and filtering support, omitting critical details like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any side effects (e.g., destructive actions). For a tool with no annotations, this 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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get vulnerability list') and then adds key features ('Supports pagination and filtering'). No wasted words. However, it could be structured to include brief usage hints without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers pagination and filtering but does not explain what the output contains (e.g., CVE IDs, severity, affected servers) or the scope (all vulnerabilities? per group?). Given the absence of output schema and annotations, more detail would improve completeness.

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 100%, with all 5 parameters having clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already provides adequate semantics, the baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 states 'Get vulnerability list. Supports pagination and filtering.' This clearly identifies the tool's action (retrieve a list) and resource (vulnerabilities). However, it does not differentiate from related tools like futurevuls_get_cve_detail (which gets a single CVE) or futurevuls_search_critical_cves, missing an opportunity to reduce ambiguity.

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 mentions support for pagination and filtering, providing some usage context. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., for detailed CVE info, use get_cve_detail). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is given.

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