Api metrology dashboard widgets retrieve

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response, so an agent knows returned fields may be absent for permission reasons rather than nonexistent. It does not say which fields get masked or how a 404/403 manifests, keeping it below 5.

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 short sentence with no filler, but it spends its only clause on return shape rather than on identifying the resource or the id parameter, so what is front-loaded is the least decision-relevant information.

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 read tool with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the description should at minimum identify the entity and clarify field masking. It leaves the resource unnamed and the id semantics undefined, so an agent cannot confidently call it without inspecting the parent `_list` tool first.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single required `id` string, and the description says nothing about it — no indication of whether it is the widget's numeric PK, a UUID, or a ref. An agent must guess from the name; the one sentence spent on return shape could have been spent here.

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 the return shape ("a single object") but never names the resource being retrieved — the metrology dashboard widget is only identifiable from the tool name. It also gives no basis for distinguishing this from the sibling `ciso_assistant_api_metrology_dashboard_widgets_object_retrieve`, which likely returns a similar single object.

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 statement of when to use this instead of `_list`, `_object_retrieve`, or `_cascade_info_retrieve` on the same widget resource. The only usage-shaped signal is the implicit 'needs an id' from the schema, with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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