Api chat questionnaire 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what cascade depth is previewed, whether the result is computed or cached, or what the 'id' refers to in the cascade graph.

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 not concise in the useful sense: a two-word fragment ending in a colon conveys no actionable information and appears truncated. Brevity without content is under-specification, not efficiency.

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 annotation-level explanation of the payload, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent unable to predict what the call returns or why a preview exists alongside the non-preview retrieve siblings. Given the simplicity of the tool (one id parameter) this is a modest but real gap.

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?

One required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no clarification of what id is expected (questionnaire run id vs. cascade root object id) or what form it takes. The only hint comes from the tool name, not the description.

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 fragment "Cascade preview:", which essentially restates the tail of the tool name rather than explaining what operation is performed. It does not say what a cascade preview is, what entity hierarchy is being previewed, or what the returned payload represents. The trailing colon suggests truncated text.

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 whatsoever on when to call this versus the many sibling cascade_info_retrieve endpoints (actors, teams, users, findings, etc.), nor versus the plain _retrieve or _object_retrieve variants on the same questionnaire-runs resource. The agent must guess from the tool name alone.

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