telivy_get_pii_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('Get') and the aggregate scope; it does not describe what the summary contains, how results are structured, whether devices without PII are included, or any error behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It immediately communicates the action, resource, and scope without spending words on obvious details.

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 getter with one well-documented parameter, the description is adequate for making the call. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from stating what kind of data the PII exposure summary includes or how the summary is aggregated, leaving some ambiguity about the return value.

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 parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'Assessment UUID', and the description's 'in a risk assessment' reinforces that the id refers to a risk assessment. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new parameter-level information beyond confirming the assessment context.

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 states a specific action and resource: getting the PII exposure summary across all devices within a risk assessment. This clearly distinguishes it from per-device or individual-assessment tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

The phrase 'across all devices in a risk assessment' implies an aggregate-scope use case and suggests this is not for per-device queries. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like telivy_get_risk_assessment_device or telivy_get_breach_data.

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