Api ebios rm elementary actions retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine non-obvious behavioral trait not in the annotations: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response, which tells the agent to expect partial data. It stops short of explaining what masking means or what happens on missing/forbidden 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. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the missing resource name and parameter meaning.

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?

There is no output schema and only one undocumented parameter, so the description should carry more weight. It omits the resource identity, the id semantics, and how masking affects consumers, and it leaves the agent unable to choose between this and the four sibling elementary_action retrieval tools.

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% — the single 'id' parameter is an undescribed string. The description does not compensate at all: it does not say the id identifies an elementary action, nor what form the identifier takes. The agent must infer the parameter's meaning from the tool name alone.

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, which conveys the retrieve verb, but it never names the resource (an EBIOS RM elementary action) — that information lives only in the tool name/title. With siblings like elementary_actions_list, _object_retrieve and _cascade_info_retrieve, the description does nothing to distinguish which retrieve flavor this is.

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 statement of when to use this versus elementary_actions_list, _object_retrieve or _cascade_info_retrieve. The only usable signal is the implicit 'single object by id', which the schema already conveys through the required id parameter.

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