picus_get_action_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination (limit, offset, max 1000), node_id disambiguation, and the condition that alerts only appear with enriched integration having alert analysis enabled. This is comprehensive behavioral context.

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 5 sentences, front-loads the purpose, and avoids unnecessary words. It is concise but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for return fields or parameters).

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?

Given 7 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basic behavior and a condition but omits explanations for required IDs and return format details beyond field names. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes limit, offset, and node_id, but the four required parameters (simulation_id, threat_id, action_id, integration_id) are not explained. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 it lists alerts for a specific action, scoped to the latest run, and specifies return fields (name, source, log_type, time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with agents, devices, frameworks, etc.

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 when you need alerts for a specific action from an integration, and notes it is scoped to the latest run. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though the context is clear.

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