get_technique_count

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns a count, that the response is small (~50 bytes), and that it is fast. It could mention edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid technique IDs or zero-count results), but for a read-only count tool the provided behavioral context is solid.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint is packed into the second sentence. The inclusion of '~50 bytes' is concise and informative.

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 count tool, the description covers the key information: what it does, when to use it, and rough response size. It could be slightly more complete by noting behavior for empty results or invalid IDs, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 fully documents technique_id with an example, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the word 'single,' which does not meaningfully increase parameter understanding 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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('detection rule count for a single MITRE technique ID'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it returns only a count rather than full detection objects.

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 explicitly positions the tool as 'a fast pre-check before pulling full detection objects,' giving clear guidance on when to use it. It does not name a specific sibling tool like get_detection, but the intended workflow is clear.

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