get_recent_vulnerabilities_by_cwe

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns exactly 3 most recent vulnerabilities, which is useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or behavior when no vulnerabilities are found. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds moderate value, consistent with the 'get_calls' calibration example.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Fetch the 3 most recent vulnerabilities') and immediately specifies the input ('for a given CWE ID'). There is no waste, and every word earns its place. It is optimally structured for quick parsing.

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?

This is a simple tool with one well-documented parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an existing output schema (though not shown in the prompt). The description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and result scope without needing to explain return values, since the output schema covers that. It is complete for a recent-list retrieval tool of this 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (cwe_id), including a clear description and examples ('CWE-79' or '79'). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('the 3 most recent vulnerabilities'), and the scope ('for a given CWE ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vulnerability (which likely fetches by vulnerability ID) and search_vulnerabilities (which likely searches broader criteria). The inclusion of the count '3' and the CWE filter makes 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 when to use this tool (when you need recent vulnerabilities for a specific CWE), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'for broader searches, use search_vulnerabilities' or 'if you have a specific vulnerability ID, use get_vulnerability'. The usage context is clear but not comprehensive relative to alternatives.

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