Api security advisories object retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says the advisories can be 'edited', which contradicts the read-only nature of this operation (the standard DRF viewset docstring leaked into a retrieve-only route). Beyond that it adds no behavioural context such as 404 handling for unknown ids or pagination/auth expectations.

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 a single short sentence with no padding, but every word is generic boilerplate rather than front-loaded actionable information, so brevity does not translate into value here.

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, the description should at least indicate that a single advisory object is returned and what identifies it. It supplies neither, and the lone required identifier is left undefined, so the definition is not sufficient for reliable invocation.

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?

There is a single required parameter, id, and the schema gives it no description (schema description coverage 0%). The description never mentions the id at all, so an agent gets no signal about whether it is a UUID, a numeric PK, or a ref string.

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 sentence 'API endpoint that allows security advisories to be viewed or edited' is auto-generated boilerplate that essentially restates the name and title. It never says this endpoint retrieves a single security advisory by identifier, and it conflates retrieve with edit, leaving the agent unable to distinguish it from ciso_assistant_api_security_advisories_retrieve, _list, or _update.

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 mention of when to pick the object_retrieve over the plain retrieve, list, autocomplete, or cascade_info siblings. The 'viewed or edited' phrasing actively muddies which sibling is appropriate.

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