get_cwe_parents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the return format ('Dictionary with "Parents" array or error information'), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it note any authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The implied read-only nature of 'Get' plus return information earns a mid-range score.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence and parameter explanation adds value, with no redundant fluff. The structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's behavior.

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 a simple 2-parameter tool, an output schema present, and a description that covers the core functionality and return type, the description is largely complete. It lacks only a brief note on usage context or relationship to sibling tools, which would improve completeness but is not essential for basic invocation.

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 entirely for parameter understanding. Both parameters are described with actionable details: cwe_id accepts 'with/without CWE-' and view is an optional 'view identifier to filter relationships.' This goes beyond the raw schema by explaining the input format and effect, fully covering the parameter semantics.

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 'Get parents of a specified CWE weakness' with a specific verb and resource, and the 'filtered by view' qualifier adds additional scope. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_cwe_children and get_cwe_ancestors by explicitly targeting parent relationships only.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cwe_ancestors or get_cwe_children. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred use cases beyond the basic 'get parents' statement, leaving the agent to infer proper selection from the tool name and sibling list.

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