search_threat_groups

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the search matches name, description, and aliases, and the operation is a read-only search by the nature of the wording. It leaves out result format details but is adequately transparent for a simple search.

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 efficient sentences with zero repetition or filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the field-matching detail is placed right after.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is functionally complete: it states what is searched, the target data, and example query values. The only minor omission is explicit guidance on how this relates to get_threat_group, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 the query parameter at 100% coverage with examples. The description adds that the query is matched against three fields (name, description, aliases), which slightly enriches the parameter meaning, but no additional syntax or formatting rules are needed.

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: 'Search MITRE ATT&CK threat groups by keyword.' It further clarifies the search scope ('name, description, and aliases'), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_software or get_threat_group.

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 usage is implied by the purpose: users should call this when they need to find a threat group by keyword. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_threat_group or search_software, nor state when not to use it.

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