mitre_search_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does (search) without mentioning any behaviors like return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or what happens when both parameters are provided. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. While it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., listing modes), it is not verbose and earns its place.

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 the tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of group names vs. full profiles) and any important usage constraints. It does neither, leaving the AI agent without enough context to fully leverage the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with good descriptions for each parameter. The description adds the context of 'by keyword or by technique usage', which clarifies that the two parameters are alternatives. However, it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 tool searches threat groups, using either a keyword or a technique ID. The verb 'Search' and resource 'threat groups' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like mitre_get_group (retrieve a single group) and mitre_list_groups (list all groups).

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 two modes of searching (keyword or technique), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mitre_get_group or mitre_list_groups. It lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations, which is a gap given the number of sibling tools.

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