coverage_list_mappings

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and mentioning session statistics adds some context. However, it does not describe response format details, pagination, or whether the optional filter changes the session statistics behavior.

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 concise sentences deliver the core purpose, the output format, and the intended use case with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional filter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns conceptually, and when to use it. Slightly more detail about the session statistics would be beneficial, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'event_source_filter'. The description reinforces that event sources can be filtered but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all known telemetry-to-MITRE mappings' and defines the exact output shape '(Event ID → Data Source/Component)'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on coverage summaries, gaps, or technique counts.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use to see which event sources/IDs the coverage engine understands.' It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough among the many coverage-related siblings.

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