Api findings cascade info retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. However, the description does not explain what a "cascade preview" returns (e.g., dependent objects that would be affected by a delete), which is the one piece of behavior an agent actually needs here.

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?

Brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness; the text is a two-word fragment ending in a colon with no substance front-loaded or otherwise.

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?

No output schema, no parameter documentation, and a fragmentary description. An agent cannot determine the return shape, the meaning of the id, or the intended use case from what is provided.

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 the id identifies (a finding? a model name?) or its format. No compensation for the schema gap whatsoever.

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?

"Cascade preview:" is a fragment, not a statement of what the tool does. It hints at previewing cascade effects but never names the resource (findings) or the operation (retrieving cascade/deletion impact info), leaving an agent to infer everything from the tool name.

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 versus siblings such as findings_retrieve, findings_object_retrieve, or the many other *_cascade_info_retrieve tools. The trailing colon suggests truncated text rather than intentional instruction.

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