picus_list_simulations

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

No annotations provided, but the description explains response structure (pages object, scores 0-100, updated_at as epoch ms) and filter behaviors (substring/exact match). It could explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but overall it sufficiently discloses the tool's behavior.

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, well-structured with bullet points for filters, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema, but the description covers response details (pages, scores, timestamps) and pagination. For a list tool with 12 parameters, it is fairly complete, though the exact fields of a simulation object are not specified.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains all 12 parameters, including pagination (limit, offset) and filters (status, names, IDs, score ranges). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema itself.

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 simulations with overview data and latest prevention/detection scores.' It specifies the resource (simulations) and what data is returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like picus_get_simulation which retrieves a single simulation.

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 detailed filtering and pagination options, guiding when to use this tool for listing simulations with scores. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for specific cases, though the sibling list allows inference.

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