lookup_cve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes return fields but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication, or error handling. The verb 'look up' implies safety, but explicit disclosure is missing.

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 concise with front-loaded purpose and a clear list of return fields. The 'Args' section is slightly formal but efficient. No redundant sentences.

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 simple 1-parameter tool and presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and returns. It does not cover error cases, but for a lookup tool, the essentials are covered.

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 fully compensates by documenting the cve_id parameter with an example format (CVE-2024-29041, GHSA-rv95-896h-c2vc). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema type string.

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 'Look up detailed information about a specific vulnerability', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_lockfile or check_alerts by focusing on a single CVE lookup.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scanning a lockfile). The purpose is implied but not stated as 'use when you have a CVE ID'. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks usage directives.

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