d3fend_attack_coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, destructive, and idempotent hints. The description adds behavioral details: rate limits (Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr), input cap (500 entries dropped server-side), and return structure (including undefended_techniques and next_calls). 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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose, followed by usage, return fields, and rate limits. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; 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 the tool's complexity (batch assessment, multiple output fields, rate limits), the description covers all essential aspects: input format, output structure, rate limits, and pairing suggestion. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values.

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 parameter description. The description adds: 'Capped at 500 — extra entries are dropped server-side' and provides an example format (T1059, T1550.001). This adds practical usage guidance 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 coverage breakdown: given a list of ATT&CK T-codes, return distinct defense counts per D3FEND tactic + identify which techniques have NO D3FEND mapping.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like d3fend_defense_for_attack by specifying batch and coverage analysis, not single technique lookup.

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 advises 'Use to assess the defensive posture of an entire attack campaign or threat model in one call' and suggests pairing with cve_search for gaps. It provides clear usage context without explicitly excluding alternatives, which is acceptable for a batch tool.

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