get_capec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and scope. The description adds no additional behavioral traits such as output size, pagination, or authentication needs. It is consistent with annotations but contributes no extra context beyond the minimal purpose.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 simple with one parameter and an output schema, which covers return value expectations. The description is minimal but sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. A tiny bit more context (e.g., typical use case) would push it to 5, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, and the schema fully documents the capec_id parameter with a pattern and example. The description adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'CAPEC information by ID'. It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_cwe and get_cve, which target different vulnerability classification systems.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description (for retrieving CAPEC details by ID), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings, nor any exclusions or alternative tools mentioned.

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