mitre_cross_correlate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies data (read-only vs write), requires special permissions, or what constitutes 'related activity'. The output format is also not hinted at, leaving critical behavioral traits unclear.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it lacks a period at the end (minor). Structure is adequate for a straightforward tool.

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 cross-platform correlation tool, the description is too minimal. No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what 'related activity' means or how results are presented. Agents need more context to interpret correlation outcomes correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes the single parameter as 'ATT&CK technique IDs to search across all platforms'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, meeting the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly specifies the verb 'cross-correlate' and the resource 'ATT&CK techniques' across three distinct platforms (Wazuh, TheHive, MISP), which distinguishes it from siblings like mitre_map_alert_to_technique (single-platform mapping) or mitre_technique_overlap (overlap analysis).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing data in those platforms), nor when not to use it. Siblings like mitre_map_alert_to_technique or mitre_search_techniques could be better suited for single-platform tasks, but this is not stated.

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