mitre_detection_coverage

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

No annotations provided, and description does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. The behavioral profile is undefined, leaving the agent uncertain about consequences.

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 with no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys purpose without fluff.

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?

No output schema and description omits what the analysis returns (e.g., list of techniques, coverage scores). Lacks sufficient context for the agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 already describes the single parameter with 100% coverage. Description adds minor context ('in your environment', 'you collect') but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool analyzes detection coverage based on data sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mitre_soc_status or mitre_technique_overlap by focusing on data source inputs, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Implied usage when a user wants detection coverage analysis from specific data sources, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mitre_technique_overlap or mitre_soc_status.

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