calculate_cvss

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 does not mention that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe error handling, input validation, or the exact output format. Although it appears to be a pure calculation, the description omits any information about side effects or failure modes, leaving the agent to make assumptions.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the action and scope. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word contributes to its clarity. This is an exemplary model of conciseness.

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, with one parameter and no output schema. The description names the expected outputs (base score, severity, metric breakdown) and the schema defines the input format. While it does not specify the output structure in detail or address edge cases, the simplicity of the operation makes the description reasonably complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter with a clear description and an example. The description simply restates that the tool takes a vector string, adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers. It meets the baseline expected when schema coverage is high but does not exceed it.

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 (calculate), the resource (CVSS v3.1 base score, severity, and metric breakdown), and the input (vector string). This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on fix generation, scanning, and other unrelated tasks. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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. Even though it is the only CVSS-related tool among the siblings, it does not explicitly mention use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which it should be selected. This lack of usage context is a notable gap.

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