mitre_soc_status

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

No annotations are provided. The description describes a safe read operation but lacks details on authentication requirements, potential errors if integrations are missing, or whether output structure is predictable. Adequate for a simple get-status tool.

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, front-loaded with the action (get connection status) and scope (all configured SOC integrations). No wasted words.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It could optionally mention that status is returned for each listed integration, but not necessary.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by listing the integrations covered, compensating for the lack of parameter details.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets connection status for SOC integrations, listing specific tools (Wazuh, TheHive, Cortex, MISP). It distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with MITRE data like attack paths, campaigns, etc.

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?

While it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, the tool's specific purpose (status check) and zero parameters make its usage obvious. No sibling tool has a similar function, so differentiation is implicit.

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