list_by_mitre

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns logsource, data_sources, and process_names per rule, and adds an interpretive heuristic: rules with non-empty process_names are more artifact-specific. This is valuable behavior context beyond the schema. It does not cover all edge cases or operational details, but it is substantial.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the primary function, the returned fields and their role in ranking, and a useful decision heuristic. It is tightly written with no filler or repetition.

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 lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields and a downstream recommendation. It explains the purpose, output semantics, and how to interpret results. It could mention when to prefer other list tools, but the core context needed to call and use the tool correctly is present.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds the conceptual role of technique_id in filtering detections, but no additional parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'List detections mapped to a MITRE ATT&CK technique ID.' It also specifies the key input concept (technique ID), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_by_mitre_tactic and list_by_cve. This is a precise, non-tautological definition.

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 clear usage context: 'use these to rank candidates before calling get_detection.' This tells the agent when in a workflow to call it and how the returned data should be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sequencing guidance is strong enough for a 4.

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