ATLAS Case Study Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value with 404 error handling, rate limits (30/hr Free, 500/hr Pro), and response size variants (slim vs full). No contradictions.

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 at 5 sentences, front-loading the purpose and then logically covering variants, usage tips, error case, and limits. Every sentence is informative, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return fields (case_study_id, name, description, techniques_used, next_calls), error handling, rate limits, and usage chaining. No gaps identified.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description enhances parameter meaning by clarifying the default slim response, the effect of passing 'full', and the exact ID format (AML.CS####). This adds context beyond the schema.

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 looks up a MITRE ATLAS case study by ID, contrasting with sibling tools like atlas_case_study_search for searching and atlas_technique_lookup for techniques. It specifies the resource and action with details on response format and usage context.

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 explicitly advises use after atlas_technique_search to find incidents exercising a technique, and suggests bulk_atlas_technique_lookup for full techniques_used. It provides clear context but lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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