Technique Co-occurrence Rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the co-occurrence semantics (pairs with support/confidence/lift) and the notion of 'far above chance', which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't discuss pagination or output shape, but with an output schema present and strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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, zero wasted words. The first establishes what it returns with metric names, the second distinguishes it from the closest sibling. Every phrase earns its place and it is efficiently front-loaded.

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 read-only rules-listing tool with one fully-documented parameter, a clear purpose, sibling differentiation, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. There's no ambiguity about what the agent will get or how this differs from predict_mitre_transitions.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single 'limit' parameter fully documented by the schema (Default 50, max 200). The description adds no param-specific detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct — no compensation needed, but no added value either.

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 what the tool does: it returns MITRE ATT&CK technique PAIRS mined from a corpus with support, confidence, and lift metrics. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'technique_rules' is specific, and the description explicitly differentiates from predict_mitre_transitions by contrasting co-occurrence vs sequence — a strong sibling distinction.

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 names the sibling alternative (predict_mitre_transitions) and explains when to use which: 'that answers sequence (what follows what), this answers co-occurrence (what appears alongside what)'. This is explicit when/alternative guidance, fulfilling the top criterion.

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