Check CVEs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behaviors: the specific local data sources (cvelistV5 delta, CISA KEV, EPSS) and the guarantee that no network access is needed. It also reveals a write side effect ('fill the ToDo list'). However, it does not say whether existing ToDo entries are overwritten or appended, what permissions are required, or how much work the match entails.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core action and its inputs are front-loaded before the network-free guarantee. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never says what the call returns or how the ToDo list is affected beyond 'fill it'. For a tool that mutates ToDo state with no annotations to cover safety or idempotency, more disclosure would be warranted.

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%, so both booleans (refresh, with_epss) are already fully documented in the schema, including the default for with_epss. The description adds no additional meaning about them, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

It names a concrete verb (match) plus the two operands (stored inventory vs. local CVE sources) and the resulting side effect (filling the ToDo list). That is far more specific than the sibling names alone, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with scan_inventory, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 the situation (post-inventory matching against local CVE data) but never states when to call this versus scan_inventory, assess_todo or cve_detail, nor any prerequisite or ordering. Usage is inferable from context rather than stated.

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