get_attack_pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true. The description adds no further behavioral details such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects, providing minimal extra value beyond the structured 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and search modes without any extraneous information.

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 covers the essential search modes and, combined with the annotated output schema and well-documented parameters, provides sufficient context. However, it lacks usage guidance or edge-case behavior, which slightly detracts from completeness.

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 75%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are already informative (e.g., examples for id, cwe, query). The tool description ('by ID, related CWE, or free-text search') merely echoes the schema, adding no new semantic depth.

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 looks up MITRE CAPEC attack patterns, specifying three distinct search modes: by ID, related CWE, or free-text search. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_cwe or get_cve_detail, which handle other entity types.

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 contexts (e.g., when you need CAPEC details) but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives. No comparisons with sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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