Api risk 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 nuance beyond the annotations: related fields may be masked based on authorization, which tells the agent the returned object may be incomplete depending on permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in purpose and parameter explanation.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits error behavior (e.g., missing/invalid id) and any indication of what the retrieved object contains beyond the masking note.

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 description says nothing about the single required id parameter (format, source, whether it is a UUID or ref). With one undocumented parameter, the description should compensate but does not.

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 implies a single-object retrieval but never names the resource (risk assessment) or distinguishes it from siblings such as object_retrieve or list. The verb-and-resource meaning is only recoverable from the tool name, not the description itself.

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 the many sibling retrieval tools (e.g., risk_assessments_object_retrieve, risk_assessments_list). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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