Get D3FEND countermeasures for a technique

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers key behaviors: D3FEND maps at sub-technique level, parent IDs report child coverage, the detail flag returns full artifact payloads (and can be large), and mobile techniques have no coverage. This is substantial transparency for a simple read tool, though it stops short of describing error handling or empty results.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the most critical behavioral caveat (sub-technique mapping) and the parameter flag. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

For a straightforward read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential edge cases: parent/child mapping, mobile exclusion, and the detail flag's impact on response size. An agent can call this tool correctly without additional information. It does not detail the exact return format, but the schema-less design makes that less critical.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description adds real value: it explains the id parameter's semantics (parent vs. sub-technique resolution) and the detail parameter's purpose ('full artifact-level payload') beyond the schema's 'Include every countermeasure...' note. This enhances an agent's understanding of what each parameter controls.

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 verb 'Return' with a specific resource (MITRE D3FEND countermeasures) and the target (an ATT&CK technique). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly focusing on D3FEND countermeasures, which none of the attack_* tools cover. The sub-technique mapping and mobile caveat further clarify its scope.

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 gives concrete guidance on when to use it: for any ATT&CK technique, with notes on parent vs. sub-technique handling and mobile exclusion. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context implies this is the dedicated countermeasure lookup tool, distinct from the search and metadata siblings. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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