MITRE Coverage

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'coverage across the platform' aggregation scope and the tactic-filtering behavior, which adds value beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe what 'coverage' means (e.g., counts, percentages, technique statuses) or return shape, though an output schema exists.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. Every word earns its place: the verb, the resource, the platform scope, and the optional filter. Highly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence.

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?

For a simple filtered read with strong annotations (read-only, idempotent) and a full schema (1 param at 100% coverage) plus an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. 'Coverage' could be more explicitly defined in terms of what the agent will see, but the output schema presumably fills that gap. It doesn't differentiate from the related get_mitre_gap_analysis tool, which is a minor completeness gap.

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 tactic parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example ('initial-access'). The description adds the 'optionally filter' semantic, confirming the parameter is non-required, which matches the 0 required parameter count. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers parameter meaning fully.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('MITRE ATT&CK coverage across the platform'), which is distinct from siblings like get_mitre_technique (specific technique) and get_mitre_gap_analysis (gap analysis). The 'across the platform' scope helps differentiate it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 says 'Optionally filter by tactic' which gives some context, but provides no guidance on when to use this vs get_mitre_technique, get_mitre_gap_analysis, or predict_mitre_transitions, which are all MITRE-related sibling tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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