search_techniques

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that revoked ids/names still match and return a replacement with redirected_from set, and that an unbuilt knowledge base yields {"status": "not_ready"} with commands rather than an error. It does not mention pagination, result caps, or auth needs, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose first, then revoked-id behavior, then the not-ready edge case. No filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important edge cases (revoked techniques, unbuilt knowledge base) well. It is only slightly incomplete in not describing the 'limit' parameter or the shape of successful results.

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 the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for 'query' (matches by name or id, including revoked ids), but 'limit' (default 10) is never explained and no query syntax or matching semantics are given.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (ATT&CK techniques) plus the matching keys (name or id). It is clearly distinct from siblings like mitigations_for_technique or techniques_for_actor, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 purpose implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as techniques_for_actor or mitigations_for_technique. Usage is left to be inferred from the verb.

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