list_weaknesses

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination bounds ('page_number starts at 1. page_size is 1-100'), which is genuine behavioral context. It says nothing about ordering, total counts, or what 'weakness types' contain, but the output schema carries the return shape.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the parameter constraints. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and pagination is covered. However, with 0% schema coverage the undocumented required 'handle' and the absence of any usage context leave real gaps for an agent to call this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it clarifies page_number base and page_size range, but the required 'handle' parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description. An agent cannot tell whose program handle is required.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List weakness types a program accepts'), which is clear and distinct in concept. It does not, however, position itself against the many list_* siblings (list_structured_scopes, list_scope_exclusions, list_programs), so an agent must infer where it fits.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling list tools, nor any prerequisites beyond the implicit need for a handle. Usage is only inferable from the name and purpose sentence.

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