get_program_weaknesses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get') but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the output format (e.g., list of CWE IDs). The mention of 'page_size' in the schema hints at pagination, but the description does not address this behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and utility. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage guidance, but overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read tool with two parameters. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, error handling, or output structure. For a tool that likely returns a list of CWE categories, more context on the return format would enhance completeness, but it meets a basic threshold.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('program_handle' and 'page_size') with descriptions. The description adds context by linking 'program_handle' to 'program' and implying 'page_size' relates to 'weaknesses to return,' but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 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's purpose: 'Get the accepted vulnerability/weakness types for a program.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('accepted vulnerability/weakness types'), and adds context about framing reports with CWE categories. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_program_scope' or 'analyze_report_patterns', which might overlap in domain but serve different functions.

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 implies usage by stating it 'Helps frame reports using the right CWE categories the program cares about,' suggesting it should be used when preparing or analyzing reports. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_program_scope' for scope details or 'search_reports' for report data), and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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