cwe_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context: default response is SLIM, cve_count is a lower bound, total_mitigations/examples are honest pre-truncation counts, and lists returned fields. No contradiction.

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 dense but well-structured, with every sentence providing useful information. It could be slightly shortened, but the length is justified by the thoroughness. It is front-loaded with the core function.

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 the complexity (2 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description is complete: it covers error cases, rate limits, return fields, default vs full, and usage context. The output schema is described in detail.

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%. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior and the meaning of 'full' for include, and clarifies the output format. The parameter descriptions in the schema are also detailed.

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 it looks up MITRE CWE catalog records from research view 1000. It specifies the verb 'look up' and resource 'CWE catalog record', and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning its place in a workflow after cve_lookup or kev_detail, and chaining with cve_search.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after cve_lookup or kev_detail to understand the underlying weakness category; chain with cve_search(cwe_id=...) to enumerate all matching CVEs.' This provides when to use and suggests alternatives (siblings). Also notes error condition (404 if not in research view).

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