Api ebios rm attack paths retrieve

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is free. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that fields on related objects are masked based on authorization — which an agent would not know otherwise, but it says nothing about 404/403 behavior for missing or inaccessible ids.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than tightness — the sentence describes output shape instead of the tool's job.

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?

For a one-parameter read with annotations and no output schema, the description is roughly sufficient to call it, but ambiguous against similarly named siblings on the same resource. The masking note is a plus; the missing id format and error semantics are the 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the sole required parameter 'id'. It does not say whether the id is an integer, UUID, or ref_id, which directly affects whether a call will succeed in this DRF-style API.

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 states the return shape ('a single object') but never names the resource it retrieves; the attack-path subject is only inferable from the tool name. It also fails to distinguish this from the sibling ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_attack_paths_object_retrieve, which appears to do something similar.

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 list, object_retrieve, or cascade_info endpoints for the same resource. The reader must infer that this is the standard per-id detail fetch.

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