Api chat agent actions cascade info 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 safety is covered; the description adds no behavioral context of its own. It does not say what the cascade preview reveals (dependent objects, count of records that would be affected), whether it is scoped to the current user, or what errors occur for an invalid id. No contradiction with annotations.

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 plus a colon is under-specification rather than conciseness; it is front-loaded only in the trivial sense that there is nothing else. A healthy description here would be a sentence or two, not a fragment.

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 retrieve tool with one undocumented required parameter and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what 'cascade info' means and what comes back. It does none of that, leaving the agent unable to interpret either the input or the response.

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 parameter `id` has no type-level description beyond "string". The description does not clarify whether `id` is the agent action id, the parent session id, or the run id — the key ambiguity for a tool nested under chat_agent_actions.

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?

"Cascade preview:" essentially restates the tool name (cascade info retrieve) without stating a verb, the resource being acted on, or what the preview contains. Against dozens of sibling `*_cascade_info_retrieve` tools (actors, assets, chat sessions, etc.), nothing distinguishes the 'chat agent actions' variant from the rest.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. At best 'preview' weakly implies it should be called before a destructive cascade operation, but the agent must infer that entirely; nothing tells it whether to use this versus the object_retrieve or the destroy siblings.

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