get_remediation_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides a useful behavior beyond the core function: it uses a built-in local guide library and still works when no cloud guidance endpoint is available. It also enumerates the return content, which adds transparency for an operation that has no output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, a bulleted return summary, and one sentence on offline behavior. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only lookup tool without an output schema: it explains what the tool returns and highlights a key availability behavior. It does not cover error cases or explicitly map to a scan workflow, but the core callable context is well covered.

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 baseline is 3. Both cwe_id and context already have clear schema descriptions, including examples. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema is sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed remediation guidance for a specific vulnerability or CWE.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the scan-oriented siblings like scan_website or get_scan_results, since none of them promise remediation instruction.

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 use after identifying a vulnerability or CWE, and the sibling list shows this is the only remediation-guidance tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, mention prerequisites, or explain that it is meant to follow a scan.

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