Api policies linked models retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that this is a metadata enumeration (available model types) rather than entity data, which is useful, but says nothing about whether the result is static, how it is ordered, or what fields each entry carries.

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, hedging, or redundant restatement of the title. It states the return content immediately.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back. It says 'model types' but not the shape (labels, ids, content types) nor how the result relates to the policies resource in the tool name, leaving a real gap for a discovery/enumeration endpoint.

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; a baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call requires no input filters.

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 gives a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('available model types that can be linked to applied controls'), so the kind of data returned is understandable. However, the tool name is scoped to 'policies' while the description talks about 'applied controls', and there is a sibling tool literally named ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_linked_models_retrieve — the description does nothing to disambiguate which namespace this belongs to.

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 call this tool, what prerequisite knowledge it serves (e.g. populating a link-type dropdown when creating a policy), or why an agent would pick it over the sibling applied_controls_linked_models_retrieve. Usage must be entirely inferred from name and description.

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