picus_get_run_threats

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns threats with prevention status and detection analysis (log_result/alert_result), and mentions pagination behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only or auth needs, but the read-only nature is reasonable and no contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Each sentence adds value: purpose, result structure, pagination details. Efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (hierarchical output, pagination), the description covers purpose, behavior, and parameter details adequately. No output schema, but return structure is described. Enough for an agent to use correctly without needing additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage; description compensates by explaining limit and offset: 'Paginated via limit (default 10, max 50) and offset; response includes a pages object with total_count.' It adds max 50 constraint not in schema. Does not elaborate on simulation_id or run_id, but those are clear from name.

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 'List a run's results broken down by threat -> objective -> action.' It specifies verb and resource, and the hierarchical breakdown distinguishes it from sibling tools like picus_get_run_result which likely lists runs at a higher level.

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 provides context (paginated with limit/offset) but lacks explicit when-to-use/not-use guidance or alternatives among the many sibling tools. The usage is implied for getting detailed threat-level results of a run.

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