picus_list_integration_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states it is a list (read-only) operation with no mention of side effects, which is transparent for a simple retrieval tool. No further behavioral detail is needed.

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 two efficient sentences, front-loading the purpose and then listing key fields. No redundant information.

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 no input parameters, no output schema, and the simple nature of the tool, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds value by clarifying the returned fields.

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 the tool lists integration agents (collectors connecting Picus to SIEM/EDR) and specifies the exact fields returned (id, name, status, installed, token expired, epoch timestamps), making it distinct from sibling tools like picus_list_agents and picus_list_integrations.

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 the tool should be used to list integration agents but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any context such as prerequisites or exclusions.

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