Api ebios rm attack paths 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 without the description. The description adds nothing at all — no note on whether the object is scoped to a folder/perimeter, what authorization is needed, or what happens on a missing id — so the lower bar for annotated tools is only barely met.

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?

There is no wasted sentence because there is essentially no content; the failing is under-specification rather than verbosity. The one identifier string is neither front-loaded information nor a structured description.

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?

Given a 0%-covered parameter, no output schema, and dozens of confusable sibling endpoints, the description leaves everything an agent needs unresolved: what entity is returned, what the id is, and how this differs from the plain '_retrieve' variant.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the schema does not say whether this is a numeric PK, a UUID, or a ref_id. The description provides no compensating explanation, leaving the agent to infer the identifier type entirely on its own.

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 literally the tool's internal name restated ('api_ebios_rm_attack_paths_object_retrieve') with no plain-language verb or resource explanation. An agent learns only that something is retrieved from some EBIOS RM attack-paths endpoint, and 'object_retrieve' versus sibling 'retrieve'/'list'/'cascade_info_retrieve' is not disambiguated anywhere.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the many sibling attack-paths tools (list, retrieve, object_retrieve, cascade_info_retrieve, batch_action_create). The agent must guess which of the near-identical retrieve variants to call.

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