ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_map_from_preview_retrievePreview how mapping data from a source audit affects the target compliance assessment before applying changes.
Preview the effect of mapping data from a source audit into this one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a simulated effect of a mapping operation, but says nothing about what the preview returns or how the source audit is supplied, which is a meaningful gap for a preview operation.
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 tight sentence with no waste, front-loading the preview intent. It is efficient though underspecified.
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, one undocumented parameter, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain what 'id' refers to and what the preview contains. It does neither, leaving an agent unable to call it reliably.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is named only 'id'. The description does not clarify whether this id identifies the target assessment, the source audit, or the mapping source — a critical ambiguity the description should resolve but does not.
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?
Specific verb (preview) plus resource (mapping data from a source audit into this one), which distinguishes it from the sibling map_from_create that presumably applies the mapping. The purpose is clear, though the mechanism for identifying the source audit is left unexplained.
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?
'Preview the effect' implies a dry-run before applying, which hints at when to use it versus map_from_create, but that alternative is never named explicitly. The guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.