Search Lookups

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

Annotations declare readonly, nondestructive, idempotent. Description adds that it searches specific fields and returns up to `limit` results. No contradictions. The description provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two brief paragraphs with no filler. Front-loaded with the core action, then details. Every sentence contributes.

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?

With 2 parameters and an output schema, this description covers the essential behavior. It could mention read-only nature, but annotations already do. Complete enough for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning to `limit` by stating default 20. `query` is only described implicitly as the text to match. Minimal but adequate.

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 it searches for text matches across all lookup files, specifying the fields (filename, description, categories, MITRE IDs, notes) and sources (LOLBAS, GTFOBins, parent-child baselines). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like detection_list_by_category and detection_list_by_mitre.

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 implies this is the general search tool, while siblings are more specific in scope. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, though the context makes it clear enough.

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