mvs_get_vulnerability

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. 'Get details' reasonably implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose behavior like not-found handling, what happens when both identifiers are provided, or whether at least one identifier is required.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes directly to identifying the tool's purpose and lookup modes.

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?

The tool is simple, the output schema exists, and the parameter schema is thorough. However, both parameters are optional by schema, and the description does not explicitly state that at least one identifier must be supplied, which is a small but real completeness gap.

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 100%, and the schema already describes both parameters, including that cve_id takes precedence. The description's mention of 'by internal id or by CVE' adds no meaningful meaning beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for one vulnerability'), and further specifies the two lookup keys ('by internal id or by CVE'). The word 'one' clearly differentiates it from list-style siblings like mvs_list_vulnerabilities.

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 intended context is implied: use this tool when you need a single vulnerability's details and already have an internal ID or CVE. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer mvs_list_vulnerabilities or mvs_get_asset_vulnerability.

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