That's an interesting point. Presumably, the Monster Manual's entries teach us enough about how a monster hunts (i.e., by inslaving you, going by 90% of monsters). It'd be awesome if Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma gave us some sort of formula for how different monsters would interact in a conflict.
A hill giant, two goblins, and a gnoll have teamed up to wreck havoc on the country-side. Perhaps the giant is the presumed leader, but is actually being controlled and coaxed by the goblins, while the gnoll is only loyal until a fight looks to be going south.
Have you seen this blog?It goes into detail how Int & Wis affect monster behaviour. How they use their abilities, whether they have target prioritisation / who to prioritise, whether they choose to fight at all and if they retreat e.t.c.
The general rule of thumb is high int = better threat identification, planning, strategy
high wis = better threat analysis, instincts, tactics
So a high int low wis creature may have an excellent ambush planned, but they are prone to retreating too early or too late. A high wis low int creature may just attack the weakest looking party member, but recognise opportunities or when to retreat very well. The blog writer also takes into account the lore of the creatures in addition to stats, so for example a Death Knight will recognise when it is hopelessly outmatched but will fight to the end anyways because it's a an ex-Paladin. He also stresses the important point that critters should only act on the information they have, not what information the DM has.
E.g. a cultist leader is going to target the person that looks like a spellcaster first. If that spellcaster is just a barbarian wearing loose robes, that's working exactly as intended. If a neothelid confuses a sorcerer for a wizard, working exactly as intended. If a lich spies on the party as they venture through the dungeon, it makes sense if the lich takes active countermeasures on tactics the party has used