get_technique_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that results are deduplicated, flat, size-limited (~200 bytes), and contain no full objects. It does not mention empty-result behavior or filter combination semantics, but it gives a clear and honest picture of the operation's output characteristics.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, followed by filter options. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only list tool with three optional documented filters, the description covers what is returned, the output's shape and size, and the available narrowing options. It could add a sentence on whether filters combine and what happens with no filters, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 description simply restates that the three parameters exist as filters. It adds the phrase 'to narrow scope,' but no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for tactic, severity, and source_type.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a deduplicated flat list of MITRE technique IDs covered by detection rules.' It also explicitly distinguishes its output scope with 'No full objects,' which separates it from sibling tools that return full technique objects or counts.

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 clearly frames the use case: when you need a compact, deduplicated list of technique IDs, optionally narrowed by source_type, tactic, or severity. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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