Api perimeters quality check 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 safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what a "quality check" measures, whether it is scoped to all perimeters or a single one, or how expensive the call is.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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, so the description bears the burden of describing the return value, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether it gets a boolean, a list of issues, or per-perimeter scores. For a no-arg endpoint whose only value is its response payload, this is a significant gap.

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, so the schema carries no semantics that need explaining. The baseline of 4 applies; the description neither adds nor omits parameter meaning because none exists.

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?

States a verb ("Returns") and a resource ("the quality check of the perimeters"), so the general intent is clear. However, "quality check" is unexplained domain jargon, and the description gives no way to distinguish this tool from its near-identical sibling ciso_assistant_api_perimeters_quality_check_retrieve_2.

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 versus the perimeters list/retrieve tools, or versus the duplicated _2 variant. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely from the name.

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