Get CWE

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile well. The description adds the specific data retrieved (name, description, severity, related CVEs, mitigation guidance) which tells the agent what to expect in the response. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a compact list of returned fields. Zero wasted words. Example format embedded efficiently. Well-structured and appropriately sized.

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-value details are covered structurally. The tool is simple (single param, read-only, idempotent), and the description lists the key data fields retrieved. Complete enough for a lookup tool; slight gap in not mentioning error behavior for invalid/missing CWE IDs, but acceptable given the output schema's presence.

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% — the sole parameter (cwe_id) is fully documented in the schema with an example format (CWE-79). The description reinforces the parameter but doesn't add substantial meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the documentation weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') + resource ('CWE') with an identifier format example. It lists the fields returned (weakness name, description, severity, related CVEs, mitigation guidance), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cve (which targets a different vulnerability identifier) and search-based tools.

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 usage: look up a CWE by identifier, providing an example format (CWE-79). However, no explicit when/when-not guidance or differentiation from get_cve or search_vulnerabilities is stated. The context (look up by known identifier vs search) is implied but not explicitly framed as an exclusion against sibling alternatives.

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