Api teams object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description contributes nothing beyond that. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations, leaving questions like error behavior for unknown ids or permission scope unaddressed.

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 text is a single token with no waste but also no content; brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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?

Given the tool is one of many near-identical '*_object_retrieve' endpoints, and there is no output schema, the description should at minimum say what object is returned and how it differs from ciso_assistant_api_teams_retrieve. It provides none of that, leaving the definition unusable as a selection guide.

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 one required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place format expectations (integer vs UUID, string type of the team identifier) could be clarified – and it says nothing. The burden was on the description here and it was not met.

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 only the raw endpoint identifier 'api_teams_object_retrieve', which merely restates the tool name/title in machine form. An agent can decode 'retrieve' + 'teams' + 'object', but the description itself adds no natural-language statement of what is fetched or returned.

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 versus siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_teams_retrieve, ciso_assistant_api_teams_list, or object_retrieve variants elsewhere. Nothing indicates preconditions or the difference between listing teams and fetching a single team object.

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