Api perimeters names retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's claim that perimeters can be 'edited' at an endpoint with zero parameters and a read-only annotation adds confusion rather than context; nothing is said about the shape or scope of the returned names.

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 rambling, but the opening 'API endpoint that allows...' is filler that consumes most of the text without conveying anything specific. It is concise but nearly content-free.

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 is the only place to state what this returns (a list of perimeter names, and in what form), and it does not. An agent cannot tell from the definition what calling this endpoint yields.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level value could have been added 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 sentence is generic DRF boilerplate that only restates the title: it says perimeters can be 'viewed or edited' but never explains what the 'names' segment returns (presumably a name/id lookup list). It gives no way to distinguish this from sibling endpoints such as ciso_assistant_api_perimeters_list, _retrieve, _object_retrieve, or _ids_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 instead of the many other perimeters read endpoints, nor any prerequisites. The only usage signal ('edited') points in a direction that is not actually available here, so an agent has nothing reliable to select on.

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