get_program_weaknesses

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses the output fields (name, external_id, description) but does not mention any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. It is a minimal disclosure for a simple list operation.

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 a single sentence of 20 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no extraneous information.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields and gives an example of external_id format. It misses details like potential constraints or ordering, but is largely complete for its simplicity.

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 0% with no description for the handle parameter. The description only implies handle identifies a program, but does not explicitly state its meaning, format, or how to obtain it. This provides only marginal added value over 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists weaknesses (CWE types) for a program, specifying the returned fields: name, external_id, and description. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_cwe_types (which might list all CWE types) and get_program_scopes.

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: you need a specific program handle to list its weaknesses. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives or any prerequisites is provided.

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