Get CVE

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by explaining subtle behaviors: the threat_ids field is a live join from threats.cve_list, stale derived-index disagreement is surfaced via threat_ids_note and threat_ids_derived_only, pre-release CPEs are collapsed into ranges, and blank CVSS/EPSS values mean NOT MEASURED. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place by adding non-obvious operational details (live join, derived-only fallback, CPE collapsing, enrichment_status semantics, sibling routing). The core lookup purpose is front-loaded. It is somewhat long, but the complexity of the behavior justifies the length.

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?

For a small, single-parameter tool, this description covers all needed non-obvious context. The output schema can document the return structure, so the description correctly focuses on semantics that would otherwise be a surprise: linkage provenance, stale index handling, collapsed counts, and the meaning of absent metrics. Nothing critical appears missing.

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 already documents cve_id with an example (CVE-2024-3400), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description repeats the same parameter guidance without adding new syntax, formatting, or validation details, so it provides no extra meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: looking up a CVE by identifier and enumerating the specific data returned (description, CVSS, EPSS, KEV, weaknesses, products, references, threats). It also distinguishes itself from get_cve_intelligence by noting when that richer tool is preferred.

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 gives an explicit routing recommendation: prefer get_cve_intelligence when linked threats need titles, actors, detections, or velocity in one call. It also explains important interpretation context for enrichment_status and collapsed CPEs. It does not mention other sibling alternatives like bulk_get_cves, but for a single-CVE lookup the guidance is clear enough.

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