The volume, variety, and velocity of change in vulnerabilities and exploits have made incident threat analysis challenging with human expertise and experience along. The MITRE AT&CK framework employs Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) to describe how and why attackers exploit vulnerabilities. However, a TTP description written by one security professional can be interpreted very differently by another, leading to confusion in cybersecurity operations or even business, policy, and legal decisions. Meanwhile, advancements in AI have led to the increasing use of Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms to assist the various tasks in cyber operations. With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs), NLP tasks have significantly improved because of the LLM's semantic understanding and scalability. This leads us to question how well LLMs can interpret TTP or general cyberattack descriptions. We propose and analyze the direct use of LLMs as well as training BaseLLMs with ATT&CK descriptions to study their capability in predicting ATT&CK tactics. Our results reveal that the BaseLLMs with supervised training provide a more focused and clearer differentiation between the ATT&CK tactics (if such differentiation exists). On the other hand, LLMs offer a broader interpretation of cyberattack techniques. Despite the power of LLMs, inherent ambiguity exists within their predictions. We thus summarize the existing challenges and recommend research directions on LLMs to deal with the inherent ambiguity of TTP descriptions.