check_cves

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that matching is ecosystem-aware and version-specific, adding significant behavioral context. It does not detail potential side effects or auth requirements, but given the read-only nature, it is adequate.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds distinct value: action, input source, and matching methodology. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 description covers purpose and usage well, but given the complexity of nested object parameters and 0% schema coverage, it lacks completeness in parameter documentation. Output schema exists to cover return values, but input semantics are insufficient.

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% with no parameter descriptions. The description only states that system and packages are objects from inventory_host, but does not explain their internal structure or required fields. More detail is needed to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's action ('Match installed package versions against known CVEs') and specifies the external service (OSV.dev). It distinguishes from sibling tools like inventory_host and fetch_advisory by indicating the input source and the nature of matching.

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 explains that inputs come from inventory_host and allows filtering by subset of packages, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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