Api applied controls cascade info retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description contributes only the vague notion of a 'cascade preview' and says nothing about what cascade data is returned, its scope, or why one would preview before destroying.

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?

Two words and a colon is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose or behavior for a reader to anchor on.

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 read-only preview tool with one opaque parameter and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what the cascade preview returns (dependent objects, counts, deletion impact). It says none of that.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. It is inferable that this is the applied control identifier, but the description adds no semantics (format, whether it must exist, what happens if it has no cascade).

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 the fragment "Cascade preview:" which largely restates the name's 'cascade_info_retrieve' rather than stating a verb and resource. An agent can infer it previews cascade effects for an applied control, but only by leaning on the tool name, not the description.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. applied_controls_destroy, applied_controls_retrieve, or the many other applied_controls_* retrieve tools). The word "preview" faintly implies a pre-deletion check, but nothing is explicit and no sibling is named.

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