lookup_mitre_technique

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Look up details' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is useful, but it does not disclose what details are returned, whether data is fetched live, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is acceptable for a simple lookup, but not rich.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the action, resource, and ID format are front-loaded. The example 'T1059, T1059.001' is valuable but concise.

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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description is nearly complete for invocation. It names the resource, the input format, and the output type ('details'), though it leaves the exact detail fields unspecified. No output schema exists, so a slightly richer return description would make it fully 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?

The input schema already documents technique_id with the same example, so the description adds no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 ('Look up') and identifies the exact resource ('MITRE ATT&CK technique') plus the input key ('by ID') with concrete examples. It is clearly distinguishable from search-based siblings by the ID-based lookup focus, but it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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 given about when to prefer this tool over search_mitre_techniques, list_by_mitre, or get_technique_ids. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name and ID parameter.

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