get_cwe_content_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that an HTTP GET endpoint is called, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention any potential caching, rate limits, or return format nuances. For such a simple tool, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is noticeable.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the endpoint reference. Every word contributes information, with no fluff or redundancy. It is an model of conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is sufficient. It states the primary function and the endpoint. Since an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. Some might argue it could mention that version info is useful for compatibility checks, but that is not essential for invoking the tool 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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds the endpoint path, which provides some context for how the request is made, but it does not need to explain parameter meanings since there are none. It does not add much beyond the schemaless nature, but the baseline 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 retrieves CWE content version information, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CWE content version'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referring to the /version endpoint, making it evident this is for version data rather than weakness/category/view details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as checking the current CWE version before querying other data, nor does it name any sibling tools. The only context is the endpoint call, which is technical but not usage-oriented.

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