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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Generate kill chain') and context (TIBER-EU, MITRE mapping) but does not disclose what the output looks like, whether it's read-only, any performance implications, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely produces a structured artifact.

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 one concise sentence that delivers the core purpose without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main verb and object.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not explain what a kill chain entails, the format of MITRE mapping, or any return value structure. For a generation tool, more context on the output would improve completeness, but the basic purpose is 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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including the valid range (TIBER-01 to TIBER-08). The description does not add extra meaning beyond reinforcing that the scenario is TIBER-EU related, which is already implied. Baseline 3 applies because schema covers the parameter adequately.

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: generating a kill chain for a TIBER-EU scenario with MITRE mapping. This is specific, action-oriented, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_scenarios (creates scenarios) and mitre_map (maps MITRE techniques) by focusing on the kill chain output.

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 used when a kill chain is needed for a TIBER-EU scenario, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like mitre_map or phase_tracker. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so usage is implied rather than clearly defined.

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