art_get_tests

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 the tool's return behavior by listing the kinds of information returned (test names, commands, cleanup commands, platforms, executor type, input arguments), which helps the agent anticipate output. It does not mention side effects or auth requirements, but the 'Get' semantics imply a read-only operation.

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 dense sentences deliver the core purpose, the return contents, and the intended use without filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every clause adds useful 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with two parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and why to use it. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit return-field list. Minor omissions like behavior on invalid technique IDs or pagination do not seriously hinder correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both `technique_id` and `platform`. The description's mention of 'MITRE ATT&CK technique' reinforces the primary parameter but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the precise resource ('all Atomic Red Team adversary simulation tests for a MITRE ATT&CK technique'). It also enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it from the singular sibling `art_get_test` by emphasizing 'all tests' and 'full attack surface'.

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 intended use: 'Use to understand the full attack surface for a technique.' It does not enumerate exclusions or explicitly compare to alternatives like `art_get_test`, but the plural scope and the stated purpose give clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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