Api risk matrices cascade info 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 phrase "Cascade preview" adds the modest insight that this is a non-mutating preview of cascade effects, but says nothing about what the cascade covers, whether it requires auth scoping, or how large the payload is.

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 only two words, so nothing is wasteful, but the brevity is under-specification rather than concision. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool does.

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 single-parameter retrieval endpoint with no output schema and no parameter documentation relies wholly on the description for meaning, and the description supplies essentially none. An agent cannot confidently decide when to call this over the sibling cascade-info tools or understand the `id` argument.

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 required parameter `id` has 0% schema description coverage, and the description contributes nothing — not even that `id` is the risk matrix identifier. With such thin schema coverage, the description was the only place this could be explained and it 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 is the fragment "Cascade preview:", which restates a piece of the name rather than stating a verb and resource. It does hint that the tool previews a cascade (likely a deletion cascade for a risk matrix), but an agent gets no confirmation of what is being previewed or returned. Against dozens of sibling *_cascade_info_retrieve tools, it offers no distinguishing content beyond the name 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 when-to-use guidance at all — no condition, no alternative, no prerequisite. With over a hundred siblings including many near-identical cascade_info_retrieve endpoints, guidance is exactly what this definition needed and entirely lacks.

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