coverage_assess_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a solid job: it explains that every technique in the matrix is evaluated, enumerates the four statuses, and frames the tool's purpose as answering what can/cannot be detected and what logs are missing. It could add expected performance/cost or whether it persists anything, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The status taxonomy is presented compactly and the purpose statement 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 gives enough to understand what is computed and the status semantics. It does not explicitly state the return format or side effects, but the per-technique assessment language implies the result shape sufficiently.

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 input schema already fully documents session_id and states the ingestion prerequisite, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond 'for a session.' Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is complete.

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 names a specific action ('Run a full MITRE ATT&CK coverage assessment for a session') and defines the resource and output categories (COVERED/DETECTABLE/PARTIAL/GAP). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling coverage tools like analyze_coverage or coverage_gaps_detail.

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?

It gives clear context: this is the core engine for answering detectability and log-gap questions, and the schema adds the prerequisite that logs must be ingested first. It does not explicitly say when to prefer alternatives or when not to use it.

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