ciso_assistant_api_crq_quantitative_risk_hypotheses_retrieveFetch a quantitative risk hypothesis by ID and return one object with unauthorized related fields masked, enabling safe access to permitted risk data.
Return a single object with unauthorized related fields masked.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that unauthorized related fields are masked, which is non-obvious, but it does not explain what that means operationally or what permissions affect the result.
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?
It is a single efficient sentence with no filler, and the behavior (single object, masked fields) is front-loaded. The brevity is appropriate structurally, even though the content is thin.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not identify the resource, describe the returned object's shape, or cover error/permission conditions. For a retrieve-by-ID endpoint among many similar siblings, this leaves the agent with significant gaps.
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 schema has one required 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. It neither states that the object is retrieved by ID nor gives format details, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 retrieve operation ('Return a single object') but never names the resource (quantitative risk hypotheses) or distinguishes it from siblings such as hypotheses_object_retrieve and hypotheses_list. The masking detail helps but the core action is only vaguely specified.
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 tool versus alternatives. It does not explain whether to call it instead of hypotheses_object_retrieve, hypotheses_list, or cascade_info_retrieve, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.