Api evidences object retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description claims the endpoint allows evidences to be 'edited' — a mutation. This directly contradicts the structured safety profile and would mislead an agent about side effects. No permissions, scoping, or return information is provided to compensate.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so it is not verbose, but every word is boilerplate and the one substantive clause ('or edited') is wrong. Front-loading cannot save content that misinforms.

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 an id-keyed retrieve tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should at minimum state retrieval semantics, the id source, and error behavior. It does none of that and adds a false mutation claim, leaving the agent less informed than the annotations alone.

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 single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what kind of identifier it is, its format, or what a missing/invalid id yields. The schema and description together leave the only parameter undocumented.

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 essentially DRF boilerplate restating the name: 'API endpoint that allows evidences to be viewed or edited.' It names the resource but gives no specific verb of its own and does not distinguish this object_retrieve from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_evidences_retrieve, evidences_list, or evidences_object_retrieve.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling evidence endpoints (list, retrieve, object_retrieve, attachment_retrieve, cascade_info). Worse, 'viewed or edited' actively misroutes the agent into thinking this is a write tool.

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