Api actors object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top: no mention of what an 'actor' is, what it returns, whether permissions/tenant scoping apply, or why openWorldHint is true for what looks like a plain lookup.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy: the entire text is a bare identifier with no verb, resource description, or front-loaded purpose. Nothing earns its place because nothing informative is present.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, a complete definition would still need to say what entity is fetched and what the id is. None of that is provided, so the description is inadequate even at this low complexity.

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 single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage and the description supplies no meaning for it. The agent cannot tell whether id is a UUID, an integer-like string, or some other key format, nor whether it is scoped to an organization.

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 is literally the tool name reproduced as prose ("api_actors_object_retrieve"), which is a tautology rather than a statement of purpose. An agent can infer 'retrieve an actor object' only by parsing the identifier, and nothing distinguishes it from the very similar siblings ciso_assistant_api_actors_retrieve, ciso_assistant_api_actors_list, and ciso_assistant_api_actors_cascade_info_retrieve.

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?

There is no guidance at all about when to use this tool, when to prefer actors_list or actors_retrieve, or what the 'object' vs plain 'retrieve' distinction means. The extremely crowded sibling set makes this absence costly, since the agent has no basis for disambiguation.

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