get_software_using_technique

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only search and defines the scope as malware and tools, but it does not disclose return format, handling of unknown technique IDs, or whether results are limited to ATT&CK software entries.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, and every word contributes to 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?

This is usable for a one-parameter lookup, but with no output schema and no annotation context, it omits what the returned list contains and how it differs from several nearby MITRE-related siblings. It is minimally complete but not richly contextual.

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 provides 100% coverage for technique_id, including a clear example format. The description adds minimal semantic context ('malware and tools that use a specific MITRE technique') but does not meaningfully expand 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('all malware and tools') and a precise subject ('specific MITRE technique'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_groups_using_technique at a glance.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_by_mitre, lookup_mitre_technique, or get_groups_using_technique. The intended context is only implied by the name and description.

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