Api chat agent runs 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, which covers the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that – no indication of what a "cascade preview" returns, what the id refers to, or whether it is expensive.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a dangling colon-truncated fragment that does not form a complete thought an agent can 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, one undocumented parameter, and a description of two words, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is present – not the resource semantics, not the return shape, not the selection criteria among its many 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% and the single required parameter "id" is completely undocumented. The description does not say whether the id is a chat agent run id, a session id, or a cascade node id, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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?

"Cascade preview:" is a two-word fragment that partially echoes the tool name but states no verb and no resource. The agent cannot tell from this whether the tool retrieves, computes, or simulates cascade information for a chat agent run, nor how it differs from the dozens of sibling *_cascade_info_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 at all: no when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as chat_agent_runs_retrieve or chat_agent_runs_object_retrieve that an agent would need to disambiguate against.

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