Api risk assessments cascade info retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the word "preview" — it does not say what the cascade contains, what the id refers to, or what the preview response looks like. The fragment does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes almost nothing on top of them.

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?

Brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: a two-word fragment terminated by a colon implies content that never follows. There is no front-loaded statement of action or outcome.

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?

A read-only retrieval endpoint with a required id, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needs a description to explain what is returned and why it is a "preview." The description is effectively empty, leaving the agent unable to call this correctly or interpret the response.

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 single parameter "id" has 0% schema description coverage, so the description was the only place to explain what object id is expected. "Cascade preview:" supplies nothing — not the model type, not the format, not whether it is a slug or numeric pk. Only the generic name "id" offers any hint.

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?

"Cascade preview:" is a dangling fragment that trails off with a colon and never states a verb or the resource being previewed. It only echoes the suffix of the tool name (cascade_info_retrieve) and does nothing to distinguish this from the dozens of other *_cascade_info_retrieve siblings in the namespace.

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 whatsoever about when to call this, what it is a preview of, or how it relates to risk_assessments_retrieve, risk_assessments_object_retrieve, or the many other cascade_info tools. An agent has no basis to choose this tool over its siblings.

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