map_threat_actor

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It lists modes but does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, performance implications, or output format. For a tool with multiple modes, the description lacks behavioral details like whether it makes external calls or has limits. This is insufficient for safe automatic invocation.

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 a single efficient sentence listing all capabilities. It front-loads the main purpose. However, a bulleted list or clearer separation of modes would improve clarity. Still, 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 (5 parameters, 5 modes, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what each mode returns, how they differ, or provide examples. The sibling tool list is large, so more contextual detail is needed for appropriate selection and use.

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 descriptive parameter names and enum values. The description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, only summarizing modes in prose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already defines parameter semantics adequately.

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 maps threat actor TTPs to LOL binary techniques and lists five distinct modes covering actor-to-technique lookup, reverse mapping, profiles, campaign analysis, and environment-based prediction. This distinguishes it from siblings like map_attck or search_techniques by focusing specifically on threat actors and LOL binaries.

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. The description implies usage through mode names, but does not state prerequisites, when not to use, or compare to siblings (e.g., map_attck, identify_technique). The context is not fully provided for an agent to choose correctly.

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