ATLAS Case Study Search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: default response is SLIM (description truncated to 240 chars), include='full' for verbose summary, and return structure. 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?

Four sentences that are front-loaded: first sentence states purpose and parameters, second gives use case, third mentions alternative, fourth notes rate limits and return structure. No wasted words.

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 full schema, annotations, and output schema existence, the description is complete. It explains default behavior, alternatives, and return fields. No gaps.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds context about default slim behavior for 'include' and provides example values for 'keyword' and 'technique_id' (e.g., 'evasion', 'AML.T0051'), enhancing understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 the tool searches ATLAS case studies by keyword or technique referenced. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Drill via atlas_case_study_lookup for the full procedure list', and the sibling list includes atlas_technique_search and atlas_case_study_lookup, making differentiation clear.

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?

Explicitly says 'Useful when the user has a technique in hand and wants to see incidents that exercised it' and 'Drill via atlas_case_study_lookup for the full procedure list'. Also mentions rate limits (Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr), providing when-to-use and alternatives.

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