Api policies retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response. It does not say what masking depends on (permissions) or how it affects the returned object.

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?

One sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The only substantive information (field masking) is tucked in a subordinate clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value; it only says "a single object" and mentions masked fields without saying how the caller can tell which fields were masked. For a read tool in a very large sibling set, this leaves the agent short of what it needs to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required `id` parameter, and the description adds nothing about it — not its format (UUID vs numeric), not whether it identifies a policy or an object relation. With no compensation for the coverage gap, this falls below baseline.

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 "Return a single object" and never names the resource (policies) or its scope. The resource can only be inferred from the tool name, and there is a sibling ciso_assistant_api_policies_object_retrieve that the description does nothing to distinguish from.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical siblings (policies_list, policies_object_retrieve) that an agent must choose between. Everything about selection is left to inference.

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