mitre_campaign_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The verb 'Build' could imply creation, but typical MITRE tools are query-based, leading to ambiguity. No side effects or rate limits are mentioned.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail, but the brevity sacrifices usage guidance and behavioral context, which are needed for a complete understanding.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should describe what a 'technique profile' includes (e.g., counts, related campaigns, attribution scores). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the output. Sibling tools are numerous, and the description does not help differentiate. The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete for effective selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'techniques' parameter including an example format. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by repeating 'from observed techniques'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Build' and the resource 'technique profile from observed techniques' with a specific purpose 'for campaign analysis and attribution'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mitre_get_campaign and mitre_search_campaigns by focusing on building a profile from a list of techniques rather than retrieving individual campaign details.

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 implies usage for campaign analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mitre_cross_correlate or mitre_technique_overlap. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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