get_parent_technique_of_subtechnique

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a structured object (subtechnique_stix_id, subtechnique_attack_id, parent object, formatted, message) and may return null for missing parents. This gives a good understanding of the tool's output, though it omits error handling details (e.g., invalid STIX ID).

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, an 'Args' section, and a 'Returns' section. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the Returns section includes the full JSON structure which is somewhat lengthy; it could be slightly more concise by summarizing the return format without the full JSON example.

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 schema richness (3 parameters, 1 required) and presence of an output schema (described), the description covers all aspects: parameters, return structure, and a fallback (null). However, it does not provide examples, error cases, or mention any prerequisites (e.g., the subtechnique must exist). It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 parameter description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'technique_stix_id: STIX UUID of the subtechnique', 'domain: ATT&CK domain', 'include_description: Whether to include the parent's description', including defaults. This adds complete meaning beyond the raw schema.

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's function: 'Get the parent technique of a subtechnique.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_subtechniques_of_technique' (reverse operation) and 'get_all_parent_techniques' (different scope).

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like 'get_all_parent_techniques' or 'get_subtechniques_of_technique'. The context signals only provide the sibling list without differentiation.

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