Api chat agent runs retrieve

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavior — that unauthorized related fields are masked in the response — which is useful for interpreting missing data. It stops there: no 404/not-found behavior, no note on which fields get masked or under what authorization level.

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 sentence, no padding — but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. The most informative fact (masking) leads, but the subject of the retrieval, which should come first, is absent.

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?

A retrieve-by-id tool with no output schema needs the description to at least identify the entity and the identifier format, and it does neither. The masking note is the only substantive content; an agent would still be guessing about the return shape and error conditions.

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 parameter `id` has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no meaning (not even the type of identifier), and the description does not mention the parameter at all. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 it returns "a single object" but never names the resource — nothing indicates this is a chat agent run. An agent reading only the description cannot distinguish it from the dozens of other `*_retrieve` siblings, and the actual subject must be reverse-engineered from the tool name.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus `ciso_assistant_api_chat_agent_runs_list`, `..._object_retrieve`, or the cascade-info variant. No prerequisites, no mention of what identifier source to use, and no exclusions.

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