Api ebios rm operating modes 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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the name — no note about permissions, what object shape is returned, or whether missing ids error out. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes zero behavioral context.

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?

The text is extremely short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. It is a verbatim identifier string with no front-loaded purpose statement, so nothing earns its place because nothing informative is present.

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 annotations beyond the standard hints, and an undocumented required id, the description should explain what an 'operating mode' object is and what a successful response contains. None of that is present, so an agent has no basis for calling this correctly beyond guessing from the endpoint path.

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?

There is one parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage and no type/format explanation in the description. The agent cannot tell whether id is a numeric PK, a UUID, or a slug, nor whether this is the same identifier used by sibling endpoints. The description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 raw endpoint path 'api_ebios_rm_operating_modes_object_retrieve', which merely restates the tool name and title. It names no verb beyond the embedded 'retrieve' and no resource meaning an agent could interpret; it does not explain that this fetches a single EBIOS RM operating mode record by id, nor distinguish it from the sibling 'ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_operating_modes_retrieve' or '_list'.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many near-identical siblings (operating_modes_list, operating_modes_retrieve, operating_modes_object_retrieve, operating_modes_cascade_info_retrieve). The agent must infer from the name alone that 'object_retrieve' means single-object fetch by id.

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