picus_list_threat_actions

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the API version (/v2), pagination behavior, maximum limit, filter parameters, and response structure (pages object with total_count). This is comprehensive for a list tool, though it could mention idempotency or read-only nature explicitly.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences covering purpose, pagination, filtering, and response. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the first sentence immediately states the tool's core function. No extraneous text.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema and 4 parameters, the description sufficiently explains input (limit, offset, filters) and output (pages object with total_count). It could be more explicit about the shape of each action object beyond id/name/updated_at, but the first sentence covers that. Overall adequate.

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?

Although the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description enriches parameters by specifying limit's default (100) and maximum (100), offset's default (0), and that updated_at parameters expect epoch integers. This adds vital meaning beyond parameter names and titles.

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 explicitly states the action ('List'), the resource ('Threat Library actions'), and the returned fields ('light metadata: id, name, updated_at'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'picus_get_threat_action' which retrieves a single action's details.

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 clear context on pagination (limit/offset with max 100) and filtering (updated_at_gte/lte in epoch), which helps the agent know how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives like searching, but the context is strong enough.

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