Api resilience asset assessments object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no note on what the record contains, whether missing IDs error out, or permission requirements.

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 short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the single token restates the name and no information is front-loaded or structured.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only retrieve with no output schema, the calling mechanics are inferable from the schema and annotations alone. Still, an agent gets no signal about the returned entity (a resilience asset assessment) or its relationship to BIA/resilience siblings.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not say whether the ID is a UUID, integer-like string, or the assessment's ref_id, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the tool name repeated verbatim ('api_resilience_asset_assessments_object_retrieve'), adding no verb+resource framing of its own. Only the machine-generated name hints that it retrieves a single resilience asset assessment, and there is no differentiation from the many sibling '*_object_retrieve' tools.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_resilience_asset_assessments_list or _retrieve. The 'object' suffix implies a single-record fetch, but the description never confirms it or excludes sibling options.

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