MITRE Gap Analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the access requirement (Purple tier) and explaining the content (threat examples, recommended detection types), which is not covered by annotations.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value.

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 explains output format (list with scores, examples, recommendations) and access requirements. Since an output schema exists, return value details are covered. The description is complete for understanding when and how to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters (limit and tactic) are already documented. The description does not add new parameter-level details but overall context is sufficient; baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as returning a prioritized list of uncovered MITRE techniques sorted by detection debt score, with threat examples and recommendations. The verb 'get' combined with 'gap analysis' and the explicit mention of prioritization and content distinguish it from sibling tools like search_detections and get_detections, which focus on existing detections.

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 states the tool powers 'what should I write detections for next?' workflows, directly indicating when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools.

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