Api evidence revisions retrieve

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds a real behavioral fact beyond structured fields: unauthorized related fields are masked, meaning the returned payload is permission-scoped and may be incomplete. It stops short of saying what happens when the id is missing or which fields are subject to masking.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, and the one substantive detail (masking) is front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than verbose, so conciseness itself is a strength here.

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 retrieval endpoint with no output schema, the description should convey what the returned object represents and how it relates to the list/object_retrieve siblings. Apart from the masking note, an agent cannot tell what it will get back or why it would choose this over object_retrieve.

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?

The schema has one required string 'id' with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it or says what it identifies. With a single opaque parameter, the description should at minimum clarify that the id is an evidence revision identifier, but it adds nothing.

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 only 'Return a single object', never naming the resource (an evidence revision); the resource must be inferred entirely from the tool name. It also fails to distinguish this from the sibling ciso_assistant_api_evidence_revisions_object_retrieve, which appears to do nearly the same job. The one genuinely specific element is the masking caveat.

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 the list, object_retrieve, or cascade_info siblings. No preconditions, no note that the caller needs a valid evidence revision id, and no exclusion guidance.

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