d3fend_attack_coverage

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds operational details: 500-item cap with server-side dropping, rate limits (100/hr free, 1000/hr Pro), 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?

Two succinct sentences plus rate limit and return structure hint. No redundant information, every sentence earns its place.

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 one parameter and existing output schema, the description covers use case, limitations (cap), rate limits, and return keys. Includes guidance to pair with cve_search for gaps. Complete for a batch coverage 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% with a clear description of the parameter. The description reinforces the cap and provides an example, adding marginal value 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 the tool's function: batch mapping from ATT&CK techniques to D3FEND defenses, returning coverage per tactic and identifying undefended techniques. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like d3fend_defense_for_attack by emphasizing batch assessment of multiple T-codes.

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 states when to use: 'assess the defensive posture of an entire attack campaign or threat model in one call.' Suggests pairing with cve_search for gaps. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the batch nature implies not for single technique lookups.

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