Api risk matrices used retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is already covered by structured data; the description adds nothing about auth needs, scoping, or return shape. Worse, the phrase 'viewed or edited' implies write capability that the readOnlyHint annotation denies, which is misleading for an endpoint whose name ends in _retrieve.

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 short sentence, so it is not bloated, but it is front-loaded with generic DRF boilerplate ('API endpoint that allows...') rather than the information an agent needs. Brevity here comes from under-specification, not discipline.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining what this call returns, yet it says nothing about which risk matrices are 'used' or what the response contains. For a read tool embedded among hundreds of similar endpoints, that leaves the agent unable to judge relevance.

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 tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 restates the resource (risk matrices) with the boilerplate verb phrase 'viewed or edited', but never explains the operative qualifier 'used' in the tool name — i.e. what 'used' means (matrices referenced by assessments/scenarios?) and how the result differs from ciso_assistant_api_risk_matrices_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_risk_matrices_list. An agent cannot distinguish this tool from its many risk-matrices siblings from the text alone.

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 and no exclusions. With siblings such as risk_matrices_list, risk_matrices_retrieve, risk_matrices_object_retrieve, and risk_matrices_used_retrieve all present, the description gives no signal about which one answers a given question.

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