search_attack_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Search' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any side-effect/authorization context. There is no contradiction, but behavioral detail is thin.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded, specific, and free of redundancy. It conveys the essence of the tool without wasting words.

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 search tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so an agent is not told what the search reponse contains or whether any pagination/filter behaviors need special handling.

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 the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description adds 'by ID or name', which clarifies the primary query parameter, but that information already appears in the query parameter's own description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('MITRE ATT&CK techniques'), with the two supported query modes ('by ID or name'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling search_* 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?

Provides clear context for when the tool should be used: when looking up MITRE ATT&CK techniques by ID or name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous.

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