picus_list_not_blocked_actions

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the return structure: each action includes signature_names and signature_descriptions (generic recommendations). It also mentions pagination with a pagination object containing total_count. It does not mention any side effects, but as a read-only list, this is sufficient.

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 concise, using 5 lines to cover purpose, return details, filters, and pagination. It front-loads the most important information and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: return structure, filters, and pagination. However, it lacks explicit details on the exact response fields beyond signature_names and signature_descriptions, and the meaning of each filter could be more thorough. Still, it is largely adequate for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It enumerates the filters (threat_or_action_name, threat_ids, threat_severities, attack_modules, assessment_id_list, is_all_assessments, run_id) and mentions limit/offset for pagination. However, it does not explain the values or behavior of filters like attack_modules or assessment_id_list, leaving some ambiguity.

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 that the tool lists not-blocked actions with generic mitigation suggestions, and specifies the returned fields (signature_names, signature_descriptions). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools through the 'not-blocked' qualifier.

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 lists available filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like picus_list_threat_actions or picus_get_threat_action. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it; usage context is only implied through the filter descriptions.

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