sophos_get_case_mitre_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully communicate behavior. It states the action but does not reveal side effects, permissions required, or error behavior. For instance, it doesn't specify whether the tool is read-only or what happens if the case doesn't exist.

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 verb and resource. Every word contributes to clarity with no redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the core purpose. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the return format or noting that the summary includes tactics and techniques. Without annotations or output schema, a bit more context would help.

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 both parameters having descriptive labels ('Case UUID', 'Tenant UUID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'MITRE ATT&CK framework summary for a case'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sophos_get_case by focusing on the MITRE summary, and from sophos_get_case_detection by aggregating across detections.

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 usage when needing the MITRE summary for a case, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sophos_get_case or sophos_get_case_detection. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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