Api risk scenarios impact retrieve

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

The description says the endpoint 'allows risk scenarios to be viewed or edited', implying write capability, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It adds no useful behavioral context such as what the impact payload contains or its relationship to the parent scenario.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but it is boilerplate that conveys no operative information — brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy.

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?

No output schema, no param documentation, and a generic description leave the agent unable to tell what is returned or how this differs from the dozen sibling risk scenario retrievers.

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% with a single required 'id' parameter and no description of what the id identifies (scenario id? impact record id?). The description does nothing to close that gap.

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 text restates the name in generic DRF boilerplate terms ('API endpoint that allows risk scenarios to be viewed or edited') and never mentions the actual resource being fetched — the risk scenario's impact. It is indistinguishable from the many sibling risk_scenarios_* retrieve tools (risk_scenarios_retrieve, risk_scenarios_object_retrieve, risk_scenarios_probability_retrieve).

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?

No indication of when to call this instead of ciso_assistant_api_risk_scenarios_retrieve or the other impact/probability/strength_of_knowledge endpoints. No prerequisites, no context, only a bare capability statement.

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