pentest_cvss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does very little with it. It does not say whether invalid or v2/v4 vectors are rejected, which v3.x minor versions are supported, or what shape the result (numeric score plus severity label) takes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the output, containing no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate more than it does for a simple but format-sensitive tool. It conveys what is computed but omits vector format expectations and error behavior, which an agent needs to call it correctly the first time.

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%, so the single 'vector' parameter is documented nowhere except the phrase 'vector string'. The expected CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/... syntax, URL-encoding concerns, and validation behavior are left entirely to inference.

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 names a specific verb ('Compute') and a specific resource ('CVSS v3.x base score and severity') along with the required input ('vector string'). No sibling tool in the list performs scoring, so there is no realistic confusion, though the description does not explicitly distinguish itself from any of 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?

Usage is only implied: if you have a CVSS vector, call this. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, no mention of pairing with pentest_vuln_cve_lookup, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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