search_mitre_techniques

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search MITRE ATT&CK techniques by keyword' and does not explain output format, matching behavior, result limits, ordering, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'Search' but not elaborated.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It conveys the essential operation and search criterion economically.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it does not describe the return value or matching scope, and there is no output schema to compensate. Given the large family of sibling lookup/search tools, a bit more context about what result shape or technique fields are returned would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the query parameter with an example. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'by keyword,' so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb ('Search'), the resource ('MITRE ATT&CK techniques'), and the search method ('by keyword'). It is immediately understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like lookup_mitre_technique or list_by_mitre.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lookup_mitre_technique, list_by_mitre, or get_technique_count. There is no indication of preferred use cases, exclusions, or which sibling tools overlap with this search.

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