Api assets dora discontinuing impact retrieve

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

The description claims the endpoint allows assets to be 'edited', while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false — a direct contradiction. Beyond that, it adds nothing about what is returned, whether authentication/permissions are required, or what the DORA-specific payload contains.

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?

One short sentence, but it is stock boilerplate that conveys no tool-specific information and is front-loaded with generic framework phrasing rather than the actual purpose. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a 'discontinuing impact' response looks like (e.g. a DORA qualitative/quantitative impact level) and how the asset is selected. Instead it is indistinguishable from dozens of sibling retrieve endpoints, leaving the agent unable to use it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. (Note: the schema has no properties at all, so it is unclear how the target asset is identified — but that is a schema gap, not a description gap the agent could fix here.)

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 generic boilerplate ('API endpoint that allows assets to be viewed or edited') that does not mention what the tool actually retrieves: the DORA discontinuing-impact assessment for an asset. It also blurs the read-only nature implied by the name 'retrieve' by saying assets can be 'edited', so an agent cannot tell this apart from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_assets_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_assets_dora_criticality_assessment_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?

No indication of when to use this endpoint versus the many other DORA asset sub-endpoints (criticality assessment, licenced activity, disaster recovery objectives) or the generic assets retrieve. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no alternatives named.

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