Api chat agent runs 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. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note about what an 'object' retrieval returns versus a plain retrieve, nor any auth or scoping context.

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 only because it contains no content at all — a single restated identifier. This is under-specification rather than earned conciseness.

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 and an undocumented path/ID parameter, the description should explain the resource and return shape. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to distinguish this from several near-identical 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?

The single required parameter `id` has 0% schema description coverage, and the description offers no clarification of what kind of identifier it is (agent run UUID? object id?). With the description carrying the full burden here, it fails entirely.

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 verbatim ("api_chat_agent_runs_object_retrieve") with no prose explaining what is retrieved or returned. It is a tautology that gives no more information than the identifier the agent already sees.

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 versus the sibling `ciso_assistant_api_chat_agent_runs_retrieve`, `..._list`, or `..._cascade_info_retrieve`. The agent must infer the distinction from the name suffix 'object' alone.

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