Api findings severity 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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what the payload contains (severity enum labels/ids?), whether values are cached or org-specific, or whether it requires auth, despite openWorldHint implying external dependency.

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 short but not concise in the useful sense — the single fragment is a restatement of the identifier with zero informational content. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose or behavior to trim, because none exists.

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 no parameters, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what this returns; instead it says nothing about the response shape (severity values, ordering, labeling). For a taxonomy-lookup endpoint in a family of near-identical *_severity_retrieve tools, this is insufficient to choose or use it confidently.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the schema-coverage rule the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. No credit above baseline because the description does not clarify what the (parameterless) call returns.

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 literally the tool name repeated ('api_findings_severity_retrieve'), which is a tautology rather than an explanation. An agent can infer this returns a severity taxonomy value for findings, but the description never states a verb, resource, or return shape, and it does not distinguish this from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_findings_priority_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_findings_status_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 when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling is named. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the lookup for allowed severity values (e.g. for populating a findings severity field) rather than a list of findings by severity.

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