MITRE Technique

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scoping constraint (single technique by ID) and the ID format example. There is an output schema present which further enriches understanding. No contradictions with 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. The example ID format is useful for the agent. No redundancy with the schema.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full annotations coverage, the description is adequate. It fully specifies the input contract and the tool's purpose. The output schema handles return-value expectations, so the description need not elaborate further.

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% — the single parameter technique_id is fully documented in the schema with the same example format (T1059 or T1059.001). The description adds no information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool gets details for a specific MITRE ATT&CK technique by ID, with a concrete verb (get) and resource (technique). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_mitre_coverage by focusing on a single technique by ID, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar get_* tools.

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 usage context by specifying a single technique ID, and the technique ID format (T1059, T1059.001) is given. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_mitre_coverage or search tools, nor provide exclusion criteria.

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