cvss_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It does transparently state the algorithm guarantee and the exact outputs: base score, severity band, normalized vector, and impact/exploitability sub-scores. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid vectors, conflicting vector+metrics input, or edge cases in normalization, which leaves some uncertainty.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and algorithm fidelity are front-loaded, and the input options plus return values are compressed into a single clear clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a stateless computation tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names both accepted input forms, gives a concrete vector example, and enumerates all important outputs. It is missing only minor edge-case guidance such as error handling and whether the two parameters are mutually exclusive, which are not critical for this type of tool.

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 already documents both parameters fully with 100% description coverage. The tool description reinforces the vector-or-metrics alternative and gives an example vector, but it adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Score a vulnerability with CVSS v3.1.' Adding 'exactly as the FIRST specification computes it' pins down the algorithm variant and distinguishes it from any other CVSS implementation. It also states the accepted input forms and the return values, making the purpose fully concrete.

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 clearly says to pass either a vector string or the eight base metrics, giving immediate operational guidance. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but none of the sibling tools overlaps with vulnerability scoring, so the usage context is sufficient without an explicit when-not-to-use clause.

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