get_latest_30_cves

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the source ('cve-search.org'), which adds useful context about data origin, but does not cover other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. The description is informative but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get the latest/newest 30 CVEs') and adds valuable details ('including CAPEC, CWE and CPE expansions. Source: cve-search.org') without any waste. Every part of the sentence contributes meaningfully to understanding the tool.

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 (retrieving CVEs with expansions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a good overview but is incomplete. It specifies what data is included and the source, but does not describe the return structure, potential errors, or operational constraints, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output scope. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('latest/newest 30 CVEs'), and specific details about what's included ('CAPEC, CWE and CPE expansions'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_cve' and 'search_cves' by specifying a fixed count of 30 and the 'latest/newest' qualifier, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 usage context by specifying 'latest/newest 30 CVEs', suggesting this tool is for retrieving recent vulnerabilities. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_cve' or 'search_cves', or provide any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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