get_data_sources

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 clearly indicates a read-style operation that returns data sources and log types for a technique, but it does not disclose output shape, empty-result behavior, or sub-technique handling. These are minor gaps for a simple lookup, but the description is still somewhat minimal.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a concrete example question that reinforces the tool's purpose.

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 a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough information for an agent to call the tool correctly. It could mention return formatting or invalid-ID behavior, but for a simple lookup these are not critical gaps.

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 parameter description already includes the format and examples ('T1021', 'T1059.001'). The tool description only repeats the T1021 example and adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('required data sources and log types') tied to a MITRE technique, and the example question 'What logs do I need for T1021?' makes the intent concrete. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_data_sources or lookup_mitre_technique, but the scope is clear enough to avoid obvious confusion.

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 a clear use case: answering what logs are needed for a given MITRE technique. It does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the example question gives sufficient context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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