get_recent_exploited

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context that annotations cannot: catalog entries are keyed on date_added, so an old CVE can appear as a recent addition, and the agent must report date_added rather than assume a recent disclosure date.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core identification front-loaded, followed by the important date_added caveat and a minimal Arg block. Every sentence and every arg line earns its place with no restatement of the name.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the read-only/open-world profile is covered by annotations. It is nearly complete for a two-param list tool; only default values and any truncation behavior for 'limit' are left unstated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does compensate: 'days' is defined as the look-back window and 'limit' as the maximum number of entries returned. The gap is that neither the defaults (30 and 50) nor any upper bound or cap on 'limit' is mentioned.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a precisely scoped resource (vulnerabilities newly added to CISA's KEV catalog within a look-back window), plus a clarifying gloss that these are CVEs confirmed exploited in the wild. That scope implicitly separates it from the broader sibling search_recent_cves, but the description never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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 'confirmed exploited in the wild' framing implies when this tool is appropriate versus a general CVE search, and the date_added caveat tells the agent how to report results. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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