Api chat agent actions object 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 the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. However, the description contributes nothing at all – no note on what the retrieved object contains, whether it is scoped to a chat session, or what authorization is required.

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 extremely short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency – a single identifier string that conveys no information an agent could act 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?

With no output schema, no annotations-driven detail in the description, and an undocumented required parameter, an agent cannot know what this call returns or how to form a correct request.

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 single 'id' parameter is undocumented in the schema; the description does not even say whether it is the agent-action UUID or a related record id. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 tool name restated verbatim, with no verb+resource explanation beyond the underscore-delimited path tokens. It gives an agent no way to distinguish this 'object_retrieve' from siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_chat_agent_actions_retrieve or _list.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisite (e.g. needing an agent-action id), and no pointer to any alternative among the many chat_agent_actions siblings.

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