art_validate_technique

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers by explaining the per-test check behavior and the return value: a validation matrix with COVERED/GAP status and overall coverage percentage. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but the described behavior strongly implies it, and no contradiction exists.

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 sentences with no filler: core action, detailed behavior/return, and usage guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation and the return format (matrix with coverage status and percentage). It could mention edge cases like 'no tests found' or 'no matching rules', but overall it is complete enough for an agent to decide to invoke it and understand the result.

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%, and the schema already documents technique_id as a MITRE technique ID with an example. The tool description reinforces that the technique is used for cross-referencing ART tests, but adds no new parameter-specific format or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Cross-reference') and resource ('Atomic Red Team tests against existing detection rules for a MITRE technique'), clearly distinguishing it from related siblings like art_get_tests or get_coverage_summary. It states exactly what the tool does and the scope of its operation.

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 final sentence 'Use this to find blind spots in rules you thought were complete' provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings (e.g., art_coverage_report, analyze_coverage) that the guidance is reasonably clear.

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