get_program_weaknesses

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'Auto-paginates' and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not cover error handling or edge cases, but the provided information is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, pagination behavior, and usage context. Front-loaded and no fluff. Highly concise.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and usage context. It could mention the output format briefly, but it's mostly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'Auto-paginates' and example values, but does not provide semantic meaning beyond what the schema already gives (e.g., 'default: all' is already in 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'accepted vulnerability/weakness types for a program.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools (none are similar) and provides context with 'Auto-paginates.'

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 explains when to use the tool: 'Helps frame reports using the right CWE categories the program cares about.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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