list_tactics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Returns: JSON with structured assessment...', lacking details on side effects (none expected), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. The description is minimally transparent.

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 short and front-loaded with the key purpose. The Args and Returns sections are clearly structured. No redundant information is present. It earns high marks for efficiency, though the lack of a title is noted.

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 that the tool has only two optional parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it omits behavioral context (e.g., pagination, limits) and does not integrate with sibling tools. It is adequately complete for a simple list tool but not exceptional.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable meaning: 'query' is explained as referencing regulation ref, identifier, or input data; 'api_key' is for Pro+ tier features. This goes beyond the schema's empty defaults, though some ambiguity remains (e.g., 'input data' is vague).

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 explicitly states 'All 14 enterprise tactics (TA0001-TA0040+)', providing a specific verb (list) and resource (enterprise tactics) with a clear scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like query_technique or group_threat_actor by naming the exact set of tactics.

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 mentions optional query and api_key parameters, implying usage for filtering or Pro+ features, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use query_technique instead). No when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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