mitre_list_campaigns

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

The description states the tool lists 'all known' campaigns but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, if there are pagination limits, or data freshness. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden; a 3 is adequate given the simplicity of a list operation.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and output. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for a straightforward list tool. It covers what the tool returns, though it could mention any ordering or the source of the data.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by summarizing the output contents (names, dates, descriptions), which is beyond what the empty schema conveys.

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 specifies the tool lists all ATT&CK campaigns and includes the returned fields (names, dates, brief descriptions). It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other entities like groups or tactics.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mitre_search_campaigns or mitre_get_campaign. An agent would benefit from knowing this is for a broad overview while search is for filtering.

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