find_for_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns all CVEs but does not disclose pagination, ordering, coverage (e.g., only latest vs historical), or any restrictions. It provides minimal behavioral context.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Every word adds value.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format, ordering, or pagination. An agent may need more context to fully leverage the 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 schema coverage is 50% (only ecosystem has a description). The description mentions package_name and ecosystem as optional filter, adding context about optionality but not providing detailed semantics for package_name. It partly compensates for the missing schema description.

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 that the tool lists all CVEs for a given package with optional ecosystem filtering. The verb 'find' and resource 'CVEs affecting a package' are specific, and the sibling tools (e.g., lookup_cve for individual CVEs, list_recent_critical for recent critical ones) provide distinction.

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 when to use (for package-based CVE lookup) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The sibling names give context, but the description itself lacks clear usage guidance.

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