Api perimeters ids retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, yet the description says perimeters can be "viewed or edited" — implying write capability the annotations deny. Beyond that tension it adds nothing (no payload shape, no ID-vs-full-object behavior), so the annotations do nearly all the work.

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, so it is compact and front-loaded, but the one clause it does contain ("or edited") is boilerplate that misleads rather than informs. Brevity here comes from under-specification, not efficiency.

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 say what a retrieve of "ids" returns (e.g., a list of identifiers vs. full perimeter records) or how it differs from the plain retrieve endpoint. For a zero-parameter read tool in a very dense sibling namespace, that gap matters.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 is generic Django-REST boilerplate ("allows perimeters to be viewed or edited") that restates the endpoint name without saying what it actually returns. It does not explain the distinguishing "ids" semantics versus siblings like ciso_assistant_api_perimeters_retrieve, _list, or _object_retrieve, so an agent cannot tell these apart from the text.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many sibling perimeter tools (list, retrieve, object_retrieve, names_retrieve) that could serve overlapping needs. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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