Api policies effort retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description claims the endpoint allows records to be 'edited', implying a write capability that the annotations deny. Beyond that it discloses nothing about what the lookup returns or whether it is enumerated/cached. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, but it is vacuous filler rather than earned brevity — nothing in it helps an agent decide or call correctly.

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 an agent can learn that this returns the effort-level enum for policies. Instead it says nothing about the return value and misidentifies the subject, leaving the tool's actual contract undiscoverable.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties: false). Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies; the description neither helps nor hurts 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 description is generic boilerplate ('API endpoint that allows applied controls to be viewed or edited') and names the wrong resource: the tool is under policies/effort, not applied controls. It never says that it returns the set of effort level choices, so an agent cannot tell what this retrieves versus siblings like ciso_assistant_api_policies_impact_effort_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_effort_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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite dozens of *_effort_retrieve and *_priority_retrieve siblings. Worse, the only stated scope ('applied controls') actively misroutes an agent away from the policies domain this endpoint serves.

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