get_cwe_descendants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Dictionary with "Descendants" array') and the possibility of error information, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly clarify that 'descendants' means all reachable nodes recursively (as opposed to direct children), nor does it mention any pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides necessary information, with no fluff or redundancy. The summary is front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 relatively simple with 2 parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the core aspects: purpose, basic parameter semantics, and return format. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar sibling tools and does not elaborate on the 'view' concept, leaving the description somewhat incomplete for an agent needing to decide among relationship-based queries.

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 must compensate. It does so by explaining cwe_id as 'CWE ID (with/without 'CWE-')', adding formatting nuance beyond the schema's plain string type, and view as 'Optional view identifier to filter relationships', clarifying its purpose. This adds meaning to both parameters, though the view parameter could benefit from examples or valid values.

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 explicitly states 'Get descendants of a specified CWE weakness, filtered by view', providing a specific verb (get), resource (CWE weakness), and scope (descendants, filtered by view). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cwe_children, get_cwe_parents, and get_cwe_ancestors, which target different relationship types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_cwe_children should be used for direct children, or that get_cwe_ancestors covers the inverse relationship. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about filter use cases.

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