get_attack_mapping

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

Discloses lazy download and 24h caching, and that it searches descriptions and references. With no annotations, description carries full burden but is adequate. Lacks info on behavior when CVE not found or if it's read-only (inferred).

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?

Three sentences plus Args block; purpose is front-loaded. Clear and efficient, though Args could be integrated into prose.

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?

Covers key aspects: purpose, caching, search mechanism. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Missing info on error handling or empty results, but overall sufficient for a focused mapping 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description compensates with an Args section that explains cve_id and provides an example CVE format. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw 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?

Description clearly states the specific action: mapping a CVE to MITRE ATT&CK techniques and threat groups. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cve_summary or check_exploit_availability by focusing on attack mapping.

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?

Implied usage: use when needing ATT&CK mapping for a CVE. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned. Caching detail is provided but not decision guidance.

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