Api assets retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld. The description adds only the ambiguous notion of populating `optimized_data`, without explaining what that field is, whether it mutates stored state, or what the response shape looks like. The truncated clause removes whatever behavioral context was intended.

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 fragment ending in "so the" is not conciseness — it is an incomplete artifact. Nothing is front-loaded because the sentence never resolves, so there is no usable structure.

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 no output schema and no annotation detail on return values, the description must carry the load on what comes back. Instead it is cut off mid-sentence, leaving the agent with no idea of the returned asset representation or the meaning of `optimized_data`.

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% and the description never mentions the sole `id` parameter — its type, format, or whether it refers to an asset ID versus another identifier. The only parameter the agent must supply is left entirely to inference from the parameter name.

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 mentions retrieving a single asset and populating `optimized_data`, but the sentence is truncated mid-clause ("so the") so the actual purpose never completes. It gestures at a resource but leaves the agent unable to state what the tool returns or why `optimized_data` matters.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. With closely named siblings such as `ciso_assistant_api_assets_object_retrieve`, `ciso_assistant_api_assets_retrieve`, and `ciso_assistant_api_assets_list`, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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