get_lolfarm_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses tiered response sizes in tokens, default behavior, content shape (counts + names, top 15 per source, key fields, everything), and a strong recommendation to avoid 'full.' It does not cover aspects like rate limits or exact response fields, but for a read-oriented context tool this is solid transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then mode behavior, then a routing rule. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name beyond the first useful sentence.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to select, invoke, and interpret results: modes, token sizes, default behavior, content differences, and the alternative tool path. An agent can decide summary vs detailed vs full and know what to expect from each.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining mode escalation semantics and that omitting technique_id in summary mode returns a corpus-wide overview. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, making the tool safer and easier to invoke correctly.

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: 'Get LOLFarm intelligence relevant to a MITRE ATT&CK technique.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by framing this as a tiered context-gathering tool and noting that deep-dives should go through lookup_* tools instead. An agent can understand what this tool is for and how it differs from search_lolfarm and the per-source lookup tools.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit per mode: summary for Step 1 recon, detailed when authoring, full only sparingly. It also tells the agent to prefer per-source lookup_* tools for deep-dives instead of escalating mode, which directly addresses the alternative-tool decision an agent must make.

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