map_incident

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavioral aspects: it notes the optional api_key for 'Pro+ tier features' and specifies the return type. However, it does not disclose idempotence, rate limits, or side effects, leaving gaps for an agent to assess safety.

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 concise with a clear docstring format: a one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. It contains no redundant information, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 moderate complexity (2 optional parameters) and the existence of an output schema (which covers return details), the description adequately explains inputs and mentions the JSON output structure. It does not need to elaborate further on outputs.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds significant meaning: 'query' is explained as 'optional query parameter (regulation ref, identifier, or input data)' and 'api_key' as 'optional MEOK API key for Pro+ tier features', which are not present in the input schema.

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 'Map incident IOCs/behaviors to ATT&CK techniques', specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'query_technique' (which directly queries techniques) and 'list_tactics' (which lists 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'group_threat_actor' or 'mitigation_lookup'. It only implies usage for mapping incidents to techniques, but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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