wazuh_search_mitre

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes search/lookup functionality but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no side effects) or outline pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters). The output schema may cover return format, so the description is adequate but lacks explicit safety or pagination context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by practical use cases. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or filler. The structure is efficient and directly addresses what the tool does.

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 4 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the main functionality (search, lookup, mapping) effectively. However, it omits details on how search and technique_id parameters work together, and does not mention pagination behavior (limit/offset) that users might need to know. Still, it is largely complete for a search tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: it repeats the search keyword description and does not elaborate on how parameters interact (e.g., combining search and technique_id) or provide examples. No additional semantic value is offered.

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 explicitly states it searches the MITRE ATT&CK framework integrated with Wazuh, and lists specific use cases: looking up techniques, finding Wazuh rule mappings, and discovering technique coverage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wazuh_rules_info or wazuh_rules_coverage_map, which focus on rule details rather than MITRE framework search.

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 the tool is for MITRE-related inquiries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like wazuh_rules_info for rule details, or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context implicit.

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