get_cwe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds no extra behavioral detail such as not-found handling or exact-match guarantees, but for a simple lookup with an output schema this is acceptable.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target resource with no filler or redundancy.

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 one fully documented required parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the essential call contract is covered. The only real gap is routing among sibling tools, which is already reflected in the usage_guidelines score.

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 fully documents cwe_id with a pattern and example, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The phrase 'by ID' adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Identifies a specific action ('Get'), a precise resource ('Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) information'), and the lookup key ('by ID'). The resource name clearly differentiates it from CVE or CAPEC lookups at a surface level.

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 instead of siblings like get_cve or get_capec. The phrase 'by ID' implies exact-ID lookup, but no alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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