get_cve_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what 'details' contains, whether the call hits a live upstream source or a local cache, or what happens for an unknown CVE ID.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves the reader with no orientation on result shape or error behavior.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, most of what an agent needs is inherited from structured fields. Still, the description never says what a 'detail' record includes (CVSS score, affected products, references) or what an invalid/unknown CVE ID yields, both of which matter for this open-world lookup.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself giving the format example 'CVE-2023-12345'. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (details for a CVE) keyed by an identifier, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools search_cve, get_recent_cves, or circl_cve_lookup, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus search_cve (lookup when you already have an ID) or circl_cve_lookup. The 'by ID' phrasing weakly implies you must already know the CVE ID, but no alternative or prerequisite is stated explicitly.

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