Api risk scenarios export xlsx retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says the endpoint 'views or edits' risk scenarios, implying mutation that the annotations deny. It also fails to disclose the one behavior that matters here: that the call returns a binary XLSX payload rather than JSON data.

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 with no padding, but its brevity comes from being boilerplate rather than from being information-dense; the one clause it does contain is the misleading one.

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?

With no output schema, no parameters, and only hints to convey behavior, the description leaves out everything an agent needs: response format (XLSX file), whether filters apply, and whether the export is scoped or full. It is not adequate for a download-style endpoint.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related misinformation is introduced.

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 the endpoint 'allows risk scenarios to be viewed or edited', which is generic CRUD boilerplate that never mentions the XLSX export behavior implied by the tool name. It does name the resource ('risk scenarios') but the stated action is vague and does not match what an export/download endpoint does, so an agent cannot tell it apart from the ~20 other risk_scenarios_* siblings.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_risk_scenarios_list or ciso_assistant_api_risk_scenarios_export_csv_retrieve. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this produces a spreadsheet export.

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