Api chat agent actions retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new information — that unauthorized related fields are returned masked — which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain masking criteria or whether masked fields are omitted versus nulled.

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 with no filler, so it is economical. The problem is that what is left is under-specified rather than that it is verbose.

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, a 0%-covered required parameter, and a very large sibling set, the definition should carry more. The masking note is the only substantive content, leaving the agent without enough to call this confidently versus the list/object_retrieve variants.

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 never mentioned in the description, so neither field documents what identifier is expected (object UUID? integer?) or what happens on an invalid id. The description 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 says only 'Return a single object', which effectively restates the 'retrieve' in the tool name without naming the resource (a chat agent action). The one distinguishing element is the masking clause, but an agent still cannot tell from this text what entity is being fetched or how it differs from the many sibling *_retrieve tools.

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 instead of siblings such as chat_agent_actions_list or chat_agent_actions_object_retrieve, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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