get_cve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get details') and source, but lacks critical information: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the data source. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and source, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read/write nature, error cases) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a simple lookup tool, it's functional but could be more informative.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'cveId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples like 'CVE-2021-44228' or validation rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get details for a specific CVE ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('CVE ID'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_30_cves' or 'search_cves', which reduces clarity in a crowded namespace.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the data source ('Source: cve-search.org'), but doesn't explain when to choose this over 'get_latest_30_cves' (for recent CVEs) or 'search_cves' (for broader queries), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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