Api frameworks object retrieve

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

The description claims the endpoint allows frameworks to be 'edited', while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The 'viewed' half matches the annotations, but the 'edited' half is inherited viewset boilerplate that misleads an agent about write capability, and nothing is said about lookup failure behavior for a bad id.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but it is boilerplate copied from the API framework and conveys essentially nothing beyond the title. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than discipline.

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 retrieve endpoint with no output schema and no useful annotation detail about the response, the description should at least indicate what a framework object contains or that it returns a single record. It says nothing about return shape, id format, or errors, leaving the agent with only the raw schema.

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 parameter ('id') at 0% description coverage, and the description says nothing about what the id refers to (string reference of the framework, not a numeric PK?) or what happens if it doesn't exist. With such low schema coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 only restates the name/title: it says frameworks can be 'viewed or edited', which the tool name and title already convey. It does not distinguish this retrieval from the many framework siblings (frameworks_retrieve, frameworks_list, frameworks_object_retrieve, frameworks_names_retrieve, etc.), so an agent cannot tell what makes an 'object_retrieve' different from a plain '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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as the list endpoint or the plain retrieve endpoint. The only clue is the inherited DRF boilerplate, which does not help an agent decide between this and the many other framework-read tools.

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