Api policies ids retrieve

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

The description says the endpoint allows records to be 'viewed or edited', implying a write capability, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false on a *_retrieve operation. It also says nothing about what an 'ids' endpoint returns or whether it is paginated.

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, but its brevity comes from generic boilerplate rather than from disciplined front-loading. There is no wasted length, yet the one sentence carries no useful information.

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 a name implying a list of IDs, the description should explain the return shape and how it differs from the full policies_retrieve. Instead it is silent on both and misidentifies the resource, leaving the agent without enough to call it confidently.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. No parameter semantics are missing.

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 boilerplate that restates an endpoint rather than stating what this tool does. Worse, it names the wrong resource: the tool is a policies IDs retrieve, but the text says it allows 'applied controls' to be viewed or edited, so an agent cannot reliably distinguish it from the many applied_controls siblings.

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 use this versus ciso_assistant_api_policies_list, ciso_assistant_api_policies_retrieve, or ciso_assistant_api_policies_object_retrieve. The phrase 'viewed or edited' actively misdirects an agent looking for a read-only ID listing.

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