get_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get all groups') and specifies the return format. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, which would be expected for a complete behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a structured Args/Returns block. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the key action. No superfluous text.

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 tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return type ('Dictionary containing a list of groups') and covers the parameters with their defaults and allowed values.

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?

The schema covers 0% of parameter descriptions, but the description adds meaning by listing the valid domain values (enterprise-attack, mobile-attack, ics-attack) in parentheses, which is not present in the schema (which only specifies type string without enums). This adds significant value for parameter selection.

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 gets all groups from the MITRE ATT&CK framework. The verb 'get' and resource 'groups' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools which target different entities (mitigations, software, tactics, techniques).

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 provides clear context for usage, including optional parameters and return type. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but siblings are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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