Api risk scenarios strength of knowledge retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description's 'viewed or edited' wording blurs a read-only endpoint into a write-capable one. Beyond that boilerplate it adds nothing about what 'strength of knowledge' represents or what the response contains.

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?

The description is one short sentence with no wasted verbiage, but its brevity stems from being generic rather than from being well-targeted. It is front-loaded only in the trivial sense that there is nothing else.

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 and a completely undocumented parameter, the description needed to explain what the endpoint returns and how to identify the target record. Instead it only claims the endpoint 'allows risk scenarios to be viewed or edited', leaving the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate at all — it does not say what kind of id is expected (scenario UUID vs. strength-of-knowledge record id) or what it resolves to.

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 generic DRF boilerplate ('API endpoint that allows risk scenarios to be viewed or edited') that never mentions 'strength of knowledge', which is the actual sub-resource in the tool name. An agent cannot tell from this text what the tool returns or how it differs from siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_risk_scenarios_retrieve or risk_scenarios_object_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this endpoint versus the many related risk-scenario retrieval tools (retrieve, object_retrieve, list, cascade_info_retrieve). The only hint of context is the required 'id' parameter, which the agent must infer.

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