Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_cveC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'formatted string with detailed attributes,' which hints at read-only behavior but lacks specifics on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or data sources. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about key operational traits like safety or performance constraints.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and output. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes or parameter hints, but overall, it's concise and effective for its length.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of retrieving CVE data, the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like what 'detailed attributes' include, how errors are handled, or dependencies on external databases. For a tool with two parameters and no structured support, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'based on the ID' and 'concise' (implied by 'formatted string'), but it doesn't explain what 'cve_id' entails (e.g., format like 'CVE-2024-12345') or what 'concise' does (e.g., reduces output detail). With low coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the documentation gap.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a CVE based on the ID and return a formatted string with detailed attributes.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('CVE'), and output format ('formatted string with detailed attributes'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'search_cve', which likely searches for CVEs rather than retrieving a specific one by ID, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions retrieving a CVE by ID but doesn't clarify scenarios where this is appropriate compared to 'search_cve' or other potential tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

• search_cveC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that results are 'formatted' to match 'get_cve format,' which adds some context about output behavior. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: it specifies the action ('Search'), target ('CVEs'), method ('by keyword'), and output characteristic ('formatted results matching the get_cve format'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, or output details beyond referencing another tool's format. For a search function that likely returns structured data, more context is needed about what 'formatted results' entail and how parameters affect the search.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions 'keyword' generically and doesn't explain what 'exact_match', 'concise', or 'results' parameters do, their effects, or practical usage. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search CVEs by keyword and return formatted results matching the get_cve format.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('CVEs'), and scope ('by keyword'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_cve' beyond mentioning the output format. This makes it clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the sibling tool 'get_cve' only in the context of output format, not as an alternative for different use cases. There are no explicit instructions on when to choose search_cve over get_cve or other potential tools, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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