query_technique

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the tool returns JSON with structured assessment and mentions an optional API key for Pro+ features, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, consisting of a single sentence followed by a brief Args/Returns section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary detail, though the bullet-style list could be more integrated.

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?

An output schema exists (not shown), so the return value description is optional but the description provides a high-level summary. However, the usage of 'query' is inconsistently described (ID/name vs. regulation ref), and there is no explanation of behavior when query is empty or malformed. The tool is simple, but completeness suffers from these ambiguities.

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 must compensate. It states 'query' can be a regulation ref, identifier, or input data, and 'api_key' enables Pro+ features. However, it does not clarify the expected format for IDs or names beyond 'Txxxx', nor does it explain the meaning of 'input data'. This adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 it queries ATT&CK techniques by ID or name, distinguishing it from sibling tools focusing on threats, tactics, incidents, and mitigations. However, the mention of 'regulation ref, identifier, or input data' as query options adds ambiguity beyond the stated purpose.

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 usage for querying techniques but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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