get_tactics

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

With no annotations, the description provides clear behavioral context: it is a read operation returning a dictionary of tactics, with filtering options. No side effects or destructive actions are implied.

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 separate Args and Returns sections, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 has only two simple parameters and an output schema; the description covers parameters and return type. It lacks information about error handling or valid domain values beyond the list, but overall is complete for a straightforward retrieval.

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 description explicitly explains both parameters: 'domain' with three valid values and 'remove_revoked_deprecated' as a boolean to clean up objects. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema's bare type/default definitions.

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 'Get all tactics from the MITRE ATT&CK framework', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that retrieve other entities (groups, mitigations, software, 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 implicitly indicates usage for retrieving tactics, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives, nor exclusions. However, the sibling tools are for other entity types, making it clear enough.

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