Api pmbok responsibility matrix actors retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavior beyond that — 'unauthorized related fields masked' — disclosing permission-based field redaction. It says nothing about not-found behavior or what the masked fields look like, so it stops at a 3.

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 is under-specified rather than concise: the one piece of information that matters (which object is returned) is missing, so the brevity is not earned.

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-only single-object retrieval with no output schema, the description is the only place to learn what is returned. It discloses the masking behavior but never identifies the entity (a responsibility matrix actor) or its relation to matrix/activity siblings, leaving the agent materially under-informed.

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?

Only one parameter (id, string) exists and it is self-evidently an identifier, so the practical risk is low. However schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the id or what kind of identifier (integer, uuid, ref) it expects, so it adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 that it returns 'a single object' and never names the resource. Without the tool name, an agent could not tell this apart from ciso_assistant_api_pmbok_responsibility_matrix_actors_object_retrieve or any other retrieve sibling; the wording is effectively a restatement of the verb.

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 versus the sibling list, object_retrieve, or cascade_info_retrieve endpoints. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the required id parameter.

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