mitre_search_techniques

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, result limits, error handling, or authorization needs. The description is minimal and adds little beyond the obvious search functionality.

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 front-loads the main action. There is no waste, but it could be slightly expanded to improve completeness without losing conciseness.

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 output schema and 5 parameters, the description does not explain return values, behavior when no results are found, or how filters combine. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described adequately. The tool description simply restates the filter categories without adding new semantic detail 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches ATT&CK techniques and lists the filtering criteria (keyword, tactic, platform, data source). It distinguishes from sibling search tools targeting different entities (campaigns, groups, etc.). However, it could be more specific about the scope of keyword search.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. For a search tool, usage is fairly self-evident, but the description lacks any context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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