list_gcve_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing a network-side effect ('Downloads references if not already cached locally') and describes the return shape, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: 1) what it lists, 2) how the output relates to a sibling tool, 3) the downloading behavior, 4) the return format. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With no parameters and a provided output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, relationship to list_kev_entries, side effects, and return structure. It is complete for a read-only reference-listing tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 for no parameters is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on output and usage rather than nonexistent inputs.

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 opens with 'List GCVE references' — a specific verb and resource — and clarifies the content as 'vulnerability dataset sources and their GNA mappings'. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool list_kev_entries by explaining how the returned UUIDs feed into that tool's parameter.

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 a concrete usage context: the KEV catalog UUIDs can be used with list_kev_entries' vulnerability_lookup_origin parameter. It also mentions the download-if-not-cached behavior, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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