ATT&CK dataset version and valid filter values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey a read-only 'Return' action and lists the returned data categories. It does not mention side effects, auth, rate limits, or how the optional section parameter changes the response, though for a metadata tool the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It front-loads the main behavior and lists the output categories efficiently, making every word useful.

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?

The tool is simple, with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, and the description covers the main return groups. It still leaves gaps: how the section parameter selects subsets, the default behavior, and the response structure are not explicitly described.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mapping outputs to version, tactics, and platforms and explains that tactic slugs and platform names are filter values. It does not explicitly explain the 'all' option or clarify what 'counts' refers to.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and concrete resources (dataset version, counts, tactic slugs, platform names), so an agent can identify this as a metadata/info tool. It is clearly distinct from the search and content siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or say what it is not.

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 phrase 'valid tactic slugs and platform names for filtering' implies when to use this tool: before filtering by tactics or platforms. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, such as when to prefer attack_search or defend_meta.

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