List auto-remediation integrations for finding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds domain context ('a specific finding') but does not describe return format, pagination, or whether integrations have status information. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is direct, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and contains no filler. It conveys the key scope ('integrations available to auto-remediate a specific finding') without unnecessary words.

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 simple tool, the description adequately conveys basic purpose, but with no output schema and no return-value hint, an agent does not know what form the list of integrations takes. Additional context about the response structure or typical usage (e.g., choosing an integration to apply) would improve completeness.

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 schema has one parameter, finding_id, with only type string and minLength, and no description. The tool description does not explain the parameter's format or expected values. However, the parameter name and the phrase 'specific finding' make its purpose reasonably inferable, but the description does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action (list) and resource (auto-remediation integrations for a specific finding). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cymulate_remediation_apply and bulk_apply because those apply remediation while this lists available 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 a preparation step for auto-remediation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. It lacks references to sibling tools or conditions under which this listing would be inappropriate.

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