identify_technique

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses input types but not behavioral traits such as whether it modifies state, requires special permissions, or returns results. For a query tool, this is acceptable but misses the opportunity to mention output format or limitations.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose and key input sources. No wasted words, front-loads the action and resource.

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 complex domain and many sibling tools, the description is adequate for a basic query tool but lacks details on output (no output schema) and how results relate to ATT&CK or other frameworks present in siblings.

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 descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides; the mode enum is already clear. The baseline is 3 because the schema is complete.

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 identifies LOL techniques from forensic evidence, listing specific sources like command line and Sysmon. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are more specific. However, the term 'LOL' is not explicitly expanded, which might cause ambiguity for some agents.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_lateral_movement or chain_obfuscation. The description implies it is for analyzing forensic evidence, but does not state when not to use it or provide context for choosing among siblings.

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