Api metrology dashboards retrieve

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

The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response, which tells the agent that returned data may be partially redacted and not to treat absence of fields as an error. Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the remaining gap – what 'unauthorized' means and how a 404 is signalled – is a moderate one.

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 a single short sentence with no padding, which is structurally fine, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. Nothing useful is front-loaded because nothing substantive is stated.

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 a completely undocumented path parameter, the description should indicate what is returned and how masking affects it. It gives only the masking hint, leaving the resource identity, lookup key, and response shape unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description does not compensate at all – it never mentions that the parameter identifies which dashboard to fetch, nor its expected type or format. The description carries the full documentation burden here and does not meet it.

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 only "Return a single object" – it never names the resource being returned (a metrology dashboard) or states that it is fetched by ID. The only informative content is the masking note; the core purpose must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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 use this instead of ciso_assistant_api_metrology_dashboards_list, _object_retrieve, or _cascade_info_retrieve, all of which are plausible siblings. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions.

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