Api user groups 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 without help. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations — that unauthorized related fields are masked per permission — but does not say what masking looks like in the payload, whether a partial result or an error results when the caller lacks access, or what happens for a nonexistent id.

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 eleven-word sentence with zero padding and the key qualifier (masked fields) placed early. It is efficient but so terse that the size reflects under-specification rather than well-chosen brevity.

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 exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining the returned shape and error behavior — it gives only 'single object' plus a masking note. Combined with an undocumented id parameter and no routing against the list/object_retrieve siblings, an agent cannot reliably call this or interpret its result without opening the API elsewhere.

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?

Single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing; the description does not say what `id` is (UUID vs numeric pk), where to obtain it, or whether it identifies the group or a membership. Baseline 3 applies for a one-parameter read tool, but no compensating detail is offered.

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?

"Return a single object with unauthorized related fields masked" mostly restates the 'retrieve' verb already in the name; it never says the resource is a user group, so the description alone cannot distinguish this from ciso_assistant_api_users_retrieve or any other *_retrieve tool. It does distinguish single-object from list semantics, which is the only real signal added.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The sibling set contains both ciso_assistant_api_user_groups_list and ciso_assistant_api_user_groups_object_retrieve, and the description gives no basis for choosing among them, nor any prerequisite such as needing an id from the list endpoint.

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