get_cwe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable reads. The description adds context by specifying that the tool returns 'description and OWASP cross-references,' which enhances transparency about the output.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool, the presence of annotations, and the existence of an output schema (though not detailed here), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, parameter acceptance, and output content. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or limits, but not critical for a simple lookup.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', including an example format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Look up a CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) by ID with description and OWASP cross-references.' It specifies a specific verb ('look up'), a clear resource ('CWE by ID'), and the output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cve_detail or search_cve.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when you have a specific CWE ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but for a simple lookup, this is adequate. The sibling tools provide context for differentiation.

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