picus_list_mitigation_devices

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements. It implies a safe read operation but doesn't explicitly state it.

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?

Two concise sentences, no redundant information. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Adequate for a parameterless list tool with no output schema. Mentions key return fields. Could be improved by noting pagination or scope, but not critical.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (device_id, device_name), which helps the agent understand what to expect.

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?

Clearly states it lists vendor-based mitigation devices and returns device_id and device_name. The sibling tools are mostly 'get' or 'list' for different entities, so the resource type is specific and distinguishable.

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?

Provides guidance to use the returned device_id with picus_get_mitigation_device_stats or picus_get_device_signatures. However, it does not specify when to use this tool vs other list tools, nor any exclusions.

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