export_attack_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the pipeline (normalize, ATT&CK-enrich), format version (v4.5), output artifact (JSON), returned fields (path, count), and inlining for small layers. It also discloses the security concern about UNTRUSTED labels. Missing details like error handling or prerequisites, but sufficient for typical use.

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 concise (6 sentences) and well-structured, leading with the main action. Every sentence adds value: export purpose, pipeline, format, artifact, and security note. No redundancy.

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 moderate complexity and that an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary aspects: action, process, format, artifact storage, and security. It is complete for an agent to understand usage and expectations.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter (task_id) completely with a clear description. The tool description adds context by noting it is a sandbox job ID from a finished report, but this is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 exports a report's MITRE ATT&CK techniques as a Navigator layer file, specifying verb (export), resource (report's ATT&CK techniques), and output format (Navigator layer). It distinguishes from siblings like get_report and export_iocs by defining a unique output.

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 when to use (when Navigator layer output is needed) and includes a security note about UNTRUSTED data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the implicit contrast with get_report.

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