Api frameworks 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 one genuinely useful behavioral detail, that unauthorized related fields are masked, which is not expressed in annotations. However, it does not explain permission requirements, masking specifics, or any other retrieval behavior.

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?

The description is a single sentence, so it is not bloated, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The one sentence provides too little information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the description does not explain the returned framework object beyond saying related fields may be masked. Combined with no parameter documentation and no sibling differentiation, the definition is insufficient for reliable tool selection in a large API surface.

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 has one required parameter, id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It says nothing about what the id identifies, its format, or what happens if it is invalid or unauthorized.

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 it returns 'a single object' but never identifies the object as a framework or mentions the frameworks resource. Against many sibling retrieve tools (frameworks_retrieve, frameworks_object_retrieve, frameworks_list), an agent cannot tell what this tool actually returns or how it differs.

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 alternatives such as frameworks_object_retrieve or frameworks_list, and no indication of when this retrieve endpoint is appropriate. The only implied usage is that it retrieves one object by id, which is minimal and not enough to distinguish it from siblings.

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