Export ATT&CK Navigator Layer

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

Annotations already establish the read-only and idempotent nature (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral details: it discloses the output structure and the 600-technique cap, which is a limitation users need to know. It does not cover error handling, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden, and the added cap is meaningful context.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains usage and return format. It is front-loaded, compact, and every sentence adds value. The return structure is represented concisely without unnecessary detail.

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 tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers both modes of operation, the return shape, and the 600-technique cap. However, it does not specify what happens when neither `actor` nor `all` is provided, or when both are given, leaving a small gap for a tool where these parameters are optional in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('all' and 'actor'), covering their semantics at 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'Pass actor=... or all=true' adds a subtle implication of mutual exclusivity, but it largely restates what the schema says. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description adds limited additional meaning, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 the specific verb 'Export' and specifies the resource 'MITRE ATT&CK Navigator layer (enterprise-attack)', clearly distinguishing it from sibling MITRE tools like get_mitre_coverage or get_mitre_technique. It also states the purpose 'for visualization', making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains the two usage modes: 'Pass actor=<name> to score techniques attributed to one actor, or all=true for platform-wide coverage.' This provides clear context for when each parameter should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of providing exclusions.

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