get_software

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get details' but doesn't disclose what fields are returned, whether the lookup is exact or fuzzy, case sensitivity, or whether a missing name returns null or errors. It's a simple read, but the agent is still left guessing about the 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?

The description is two sentences and entirely relevant. It front-loads the core purpose and gives examples without padding. Minor room for improvement in adding usage guidance, but the structure is efficient.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it says what the tool does and what input it takes. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context about the response or matching behavior would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'name' parameter with examples. The description reiterates the same examples (Cobalt Strike, Mimikatz) and adds 'PsExec' via the schema, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states 'Get details about MITRE ATT&CK software (malware or tools) by name' with a specific verb and resource. It names examples (Cobalt Strike, Mimikatz), which adds clarity. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search_software, but the 'by name' lookup semantics are somewhat implied.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. the many sibling tools like search_software, malpedia_search, or get_software_using_technique. The examples imply a known-name lookup, but there is no stated exclusion or routing guidance.

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