mitre_search_mitigations

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

The description only states a simple search action with no behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, returns a list or single item, supports pagination, or requires any special permissions. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden.

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 extremely concise at 5 words, but it lacks structure and reads as a phrase rather than a full sentence. While there is no wasteful content, the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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?

Despite having only one required parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the search returns (e.g., mitigation names, IDs), how to format the keyword, or any limitations. For a MITRE tool, 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?

The single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema as 'Keyword search for mitigations'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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 'Search mitigations by keyword' clearly conveys that the tool performs a keyword search for mitigations. However, it does not distinguish from sibling search tools like mitre_search_techniques or mitre_get_mitigation.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mitre_get_mitigation or mitre_mitigations_for_technique.

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