Api get combined assessments status retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds that the result is counts grouped by status, but says nothing about which statuses appear, whether counts are tenant-wide, or what the response structure looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the ambiguity around 'combined assessments'.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description bears responsibility for explaining the return value. It gives the shape at a high level ('counts per status') but does not identify which assessment domains are combined or what status values to expect, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning.

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 states a verb-resource pair ('returns combined assessment counts per status'), so the general purpose is inferable. However, 'combined assessments' is never defined — it is unclear which assessment types are aggregated or how this differs from siblings like compliance_assessments_per_status_retrieve and requirement_assessments_per_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?

There is no guidance on when to call this endpoint versus the many per-status siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites or scope. The agent must infer its use case from the name alone.

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