attack_map

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses deterministic behavior, scope over CONFIRMED/INFERRED findings, and evidence citations. However, it omits details on permissions, side effects, or rate limits, which would enhance transparency for a zero-annotation 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides value: deterministic nature, scope, and timing. No redundancy or unnecessary 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 zero parameters and an output schema (which explains return values), the description covers usage context, scope, and behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the 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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage set a baseline of 4. The description explains the tool's operation without needing parameter details, adding adequate meaning beyond the empty 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('corroborated findings to MITRE ATT&CK techniques'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., corroborate_claim, hypothesis_add) by focusing on mapping confirmed/inferred findings to attack techniques.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this near the end of an investigation to frame the kill chain,' providing when to use it. Implicitly indicates not to use it earlier or without corroborated findings, but does not explicitly list alternative tools.

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