Api assets object retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description says the endpoint allows assets to be 'viewed or edited', implying write capability that the annotations deny. It also omits return shape, 404 behaviour, and whether the asset is scoped to the caller's permissions.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, so it is not bloated, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than 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?

With one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and annotations that only cover the safety profile, the description leaves the agent without enough to call this confidently: it does not say what is returned, what permissions apply, or how it differs from the list/retrieve siblings.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description says nothing about what the id refers to (asset UUID/slug), its format, or what happens for unknown ids. It adds no semantic value over the bare schema.

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 sentence is generic boilerplate ('API endpoint that allows assets to be viewed or edited') that restates the tool name rather than stating that it retrieves a single asset by id. It gives no way to distinguish this from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_assets_list, ciso_assistant_api_assets_retrieve, or ciso_assistant_api_assets_object_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 on when to use this endpoint versus the many sibling asset endpoints (list, retrieve, object_retrieve, create, update, partial_update, destroy). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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