Predict MITRE Transitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what the output contains (probabilities and example threats) but doesn't disclose return format specifics or limit behavior despite an output schema existing. It adds marginal value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 clean sentences front-load the core purpose, then provide direction usage and a pairing suggestion. Zero wasted words; every clause earns its place.

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 has an output schema to explain return values, and the description covers purpose, direction semantics, and pairings. With 3 params all documented at 100% coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral guidance. Minor gap: no mention of probability thresholding or how top_n interacts with results, but this is adequately compensated by the output schema.

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 are already documented. The description reinforces the direction enum semantics ('forward' vs 'reverse') and its purpose, adding functional meaning to technique_id by implying its role as the source technique. The direction explanation in the description explicitly complements the schema's enum values, adding genuine value.

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 predicts MITRE ATT&CK techniques likely to follow or precede a given technique, with observed probabilities and example threats. It distinguishes direction semantics (forward vs reverse) and explicitly pairs it with get_mitre_technique for context, aiding differentiation from siblings like get_mitre_coverage or get_mitre_gap_analysis.

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 when to use each direction ('forward to anticipate the next step in a kill chain; reverse to infer what came before') and names the complementary tool to pair it with (get_mitre_technique). This gives clear contextual guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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