triage_cve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains concurrent fan-out, NVD fallback, and depth-specific behavior (SSVC for deep). It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 well-structured with a summary line, then detailed explanation, then Args. It is concise for the complexity but could be slightly tighter. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers inputs, behavior, and depth variations adequately. It does not detail output fields, but that is likely in the output schema.

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%, but the description provides a detailed Args block explaining cve_id and depth, including explicit values for depth. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it is a one-call CVE triage orchestrator that fans out multiple upstream sources and computes a composite risk score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_cve or get_epss_score by offering a comprehensive assessment in a single call.

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 implies use when a holistic risk assessment is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings. However, the context of fanning out multiple sources and depth options gives clear usage context.

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