List Binaries by MITRE Technique

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: pagination via limit/offset and the inclusion of sub-techniques for parent technique queries. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 three sentences: purpose, input example, pagination. It is front-loaded with the core action, uses no superfluous words, and is easy to scan. Every sentence provides necessary information.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description need not detail return values. It covers usage, pagination, and sub-technique behavior. Could be slightly enhanced by summarizing expected output fields, but overall complete enough for agent invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining technique_id usage with examples and noting the sub-technique behavior. It also describes limit and offset as pagination parameters with defaults. While sufficient, more explicit detail on limit/offset interpretation could improve clarity.

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 lists all binaries (LOLBAS + GTFOBins) mapped to a specific MITRE ATT&CK technique. It specifies the resource (binaries), action (list), and scope (by technique), distinguishing it from siblings like detection_list_by_category and detection_lookup_binary.

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 provides explicit guidance on input format with examples (e.g., 'T1218', 'T1059.001', 'T1105') and notes that searching a parent technique returns sub-techniques. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the usage context clear.

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