Api resilience asset assessments retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail — unauthorized related fields are masked — but does not explain authorization scope, missing-id behavior, or response shape beyond 'single 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?

The single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It spends its only clause on masking while omitting the core lookup parameter and resource identity.

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 simple retrieve-by-id tool with no output schema, the description should at least state what entity is returned and that it requires an id. It only hints at masked fields and therefore leaves key invocation context missing.

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%, so the description must explain the sole required 'id' parameter. It never mentions the id or what it identifies, leaving the parameter completely undocumented outside the bare schema type.

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' without naming the resource (resilience asset assessment) or stating that it is retrieved by id. The name/title carry the actual purpose, so the description adds masking behavior but does not clearly state what the tool does.

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 tool versus sibling retrieval tools such as the list, object_retrieve, or metrics endpoints. It also omits prerequisites like needing an existing assessment id.

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