get_techniques

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination via limit/offset, token optimization via include_descriptions, and data filtering via remove_revoked_deprecated. However, it does not mention rate limits, caching, or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. It is moderately concise but could be slightly shorter by omitting redundant defaults. Front-loading is good with the main purpose stated first.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (though description briefly mentions return type), the description is reasonably complete. It covers all inputs and explains the return value. Missing explicit details about output format beyond 'dictionary containing list and pagination metadata'.

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 0%, so description compensates fully. It explains all 6 parameters: domain with examples, include_subtechniques, remove_revoked_deprecated, include_descriptions (token usage), limit (default 20), and offset (pagination). Each parameter's purpose and effect are clear.

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 techniques from the MITRE ATT&CK framework' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_groups and get_mitigations by focusing solely on techniques and mentioning token-optimized responses.

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 listing techniques but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_technique_by_id or get_techniques_by_tactic. No guidance on when not to use it.

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