sophos_mitre_attack_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return content (detection capability, queries, etc.) but does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, side effects, or confirm the tool is read-only. The safety is implied but not explicit.

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 sentence that front-loads the key purpose and efficiently lists return items. No extraneous information.

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 no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and output content. It lacks mention of output format, authentication prerequisites, or error handling, but for a simple retrieval tool it is adequately complete.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (technique_id). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, which already provides the enum values and description. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 for high coverage with limited added value.

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 retrieves Sophos-specific detection and hunting guidance for MITRE ATT&CK techniques, listing specific return items (detection capability, Live Discover SQL queries, policy settings, escalation guidance). It is distinct from sibling tools like sophos_soc_tool_guide.

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 context (for MITRE ATT&CK techniques) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools.

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