classify_cwe

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the tool uses a ML model to predict categories and maps them to parent CWEs, which signals that outputs are predictions and not exact database matches. This goes beyond basic safety annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence provides distinct value—purpose and model behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one input and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior (classification with parent CWE mapping). It does not mention limitations like language support (already in schema) or probability scores, but these are not essential for correct selection and invocation. The sibling context makes the tool's niche clear.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter (description) with 100% coverage, including language specification (English). The description does not add extra parameter semantics such as length limits or examples, but the schema adequately defines the input, so no gap exists.

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 action ('Classify a vulnerability description into CWE categories') and distinguishes from siblings like classify_severity by specifying CWE categorization. It also mentions the model (CIRCL's RoBERTa) and mapping to parent CWEs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for CWE classification but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as classify_severity. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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