Api vulnerabilities retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful non-annotation context — that unauthorized related fields are masked in the response — but leaves unexplained what determines authorization (user permissions, field-level access) and whether masking changes the object shape.

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 short sentence with no padding or redundancy, and the most distinctive information (field masking) is stated immediately. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the vagueness noted above.

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?

For a simple read-only getter the annotations cover safety, but the description leaves the resource unnamed, the id format unspecified, and the distinction from object_retrieve unexplained in an unusually large sibling set. There is no output schema, so return shape rests on the description's vague 'single object' phrasing.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden and does not: it never mentions the id, its format (UUID vs. numeric), or how to obtain a valid one. A lookup-by-id tool that doesn't describe its identifier is a real 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?

"Return a single object" restates the name's "retrieve" without naming the resource or the scope of the object; the fact that it operates on a vulnerability must be inferred entirely from the tool name. It also gives no basis for choosing between it and the sibling ciso_assistant_api_vulnerabilities_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?

No when-to-use signal, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as vulnerabilities_list or vulnerabilities_object_retrieve. The agent gets no guidance on when this tool is the right pick.

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