mitre_mitigations_for_technique

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any side effects. The description is too sparse for an agent to infer behavioral traits beyond a simple read.

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, no fluff, front-loaded with the action. Every word is necessary. Very concise.

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 exists, so the description should explain what is returned. It only says 'mitigations' without specifying structure (e.g., list of IDs, full objects). For an agent to use the result correctly, more context is needed.

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 the schema already describes techniqueId as 'ATT&CK technique ID (e.g., T1059.001)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get', the resource 'mitigations', and the scope 'applicable to a specific technique'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'mitre_get_mitigation' (single mitigation) and 'mitre_search_mitigations' (search across all).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or provide context like 'Use this when you need mitigations for a known technique; for searching across techniques, use mitre_search_mitigations instead.' The description is minimal.

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