map_attck

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

No annotations provided; description lists modes but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Lacks details on safety or required permissions.

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?

Single sentence front-loaded with main purpose and functionalities. No wasted words, concise and clear.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, description lacks details on return values, mode-specific behavior, and prerequisites (e.g., environment_id). Incomplete for multi-mode 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 has 100% description coverage; description adds no extra meaning beyond schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Map', resource 'LOL techniques to MITRE ATT&CK', and lists specific functionalities (lookup, coverage, Navigator layer export, heatmap, gap analysis), distinguishing it from siblings like map_threat_actor.

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?

Implied usage for mapping LOL techniques to ATT&CK, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., find_* tools or map_threat_actor).

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