Api policies per status retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says the endpoint "allows applied controls to be viewed or edited," implying a write capability that does not exist on this route. It adds no other behavioral context (what the per-status grouping returns, whether counts or objects). The description contradicts rather than supplements the structured safety profile.

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?

It is a single short sentence and therefore appropriately sized and front-loaded, but the sentence does not earn its place because its content is boilerplate that misidentifies the resource. Length is fine; substance is not.

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?

This is an aggregation-style retrieve endpoint with no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a "per status" response looks like (status keys with counts vs. a list of policies). It delivers none of that and instead describes a different endpoint, leaving the tool effectively undocumented.

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 and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document; the 4 baseline for no-param tools applies. The description neither helps nor hurts here, though it does nothing to clarify that the status dimension is implicit rather than a filter argument.

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 names the wrong resource: it says the endpoint is for "applied controls" while the tool is ciso_assistant_api_policies_per_status_retrieve, i.e. policies grouped per status. Neither "policies" nor the per-status aggregation appears, so an agent reading only the description would select the wrong tool. This is boilerplate copied from a generic viewset docstring, not a statement of this tool's purpose.

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 the obvious alternatives in the sibling list (ciso_assistant_api_policies_list, ciso_assistant_api_policies_status_retrieve, ciso_assistant_api_policies_retrieve). Worse, the one signal it gives — "applied controls" — would steer an agent away from the correct siblings.

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