ciso_assistant_api_document_attachments_file_retrieveRetrieves and serves a document attachment file by ID with the correct content type, enabling direct access to stored files through the CISO Assistant API.
Serve the attachment file with correct content type.
| 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is that the response is the file body with a correct content type, which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It says nothing about large-file handling, missing-file behavior, or access control on the attachment.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no padding. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions rather than reflecting a deliberate minimalism.
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, the description correctly states the return is the file with a proper content type, which is the key fact. It is still thin for a file-download endpoint: no mention that the id refers to a document attachment, no error semantics, and no permission prerequisites that would let an agent call it confidently on the first try.
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% for the single required `id` parameter, so the description is the only place that could explain it — and it says nothing. An agent must guess whether `id` is the attachment id, the document id, or a revision id. Only the word 'attachment' in the description nudges toward the right interpretation.
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?
"Serve the attachment file with correct content type" names a specific verb (serve) and resource (the attachment file), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the metadata-oriented siblings (document_attachments_retrieve / _object_retrieve) by returning the file payload rather than a record. It never names those siblings explicitly, but the binary-vs-metadata distinction is discernible.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this when you need the actual file bytes' rather than the JSON record. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over ciso_assistant_api_document_attachments_retrieve or _object_retrieve, and no prerequisites (auth on the attachment, permissions) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.