search_course_of_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only restates the search intent and the domain; it doesn't state matching semantics, return format, pagination, or any side effects or prerequisites. An agent gets little insight beyond the tool name.

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?

A single focused sentence with no redundant words; the parenthetical adds domain context without bloat. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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?

The description plus full input schema is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with a query and limit. However, there is no output schema and the description doesn't describe the return value, ordering, or result handling, so completeness is only mid-range.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents query as 'Mitigation name or MITRE ID' and limit with default/max. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the full 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and a distinct resource ('courses of action'), and the parenthetical '(mitigations for attack techniques)' clarifies the domain. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools such as search_attack_pattern and search_threat_intel.

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 the tool is the right choice when looking for courses of action/mitigations, and the parenthetical gives domain context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference alternative sibling search tools.

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