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 details: cap at 500 entries (dropped server-side), rate limits, and return structure (queried_techniques, coverage_by_tactic, etc.). 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?

Concise 4-sentence description that front-loads purpose, includes example, use case, and output details. No redundancy.

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?

Covers input constraints, output fields (with names), use case, and integration hints. Despite not showing output schema, description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and results.

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 clear parameter descriptions. Description adds value by providing example input and noting the 500-entity cap, which is beyond schema info.

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 purpose: batch coverage breakdown of ATT&CK T-codes to D3FEND tactics, identifying undefended techniques. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like d3fend_defense_lookup by focusing on batch assessment of an entire attack campaign.

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 defensive posture of a campaign), and suggests pairing with cve_search for gaps. Includes rate limits. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions, but purpose is sufficiently differentiated.

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