ciso_assistant_api_crq_quantitative_risk_scenarios_retrieveRetrieve a single quantitative risk scenario by ID, returning one object with unauthorized fields masked so users see only 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 establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that unauthorized related fields are masked, which is not captured by the annotations. It does not describe the authorization model or any other return-time behavior, so it remains a moderate addition.
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 wasted words. It is structurally clean, though it omits essential information rather than being verbose.
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 retrieval endpoint with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the description is far too sparse. It should at least identify the resource, explain the ID lookup, and clarify the masking behavior relative to retrieval. The masking note is useful but insufficient.
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 0% description coverage for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. It provides no semantics for what the ID identifies or what form it takes, leaving an agent with only the bare required field name from the schema.
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 says it returns a single object and mentions masking, but never states that the object is a CRQ quantitative risk scenario or that it is retrieved by ID. An agent cannot distinguish this retrieval endpoint from sibling tools such as ciso_assistant_api_crq_quantitative_risk_scenarios_object_retrieve or the list endpoint based on the description alone.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisites or expected context. The existence of both 'retrieve' and 'object_retrieve' siblings makes this omission significant, because an agent has no textual basis for choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.