ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_kill_chains_object_retrieveRetrieves a specific EBIOS RM kill chain by its ID from the CISO Assistant API, returning its details for risk analysis and threat modeling workflows.
api_ebios_rm_kill_chains_object_retrieve
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that, leaving questions like whether a missing id errors or returns empty, and what permission scope is needed, unanswered.
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 short, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency: the single token is a name echo with no front-loaded statement of purpose.
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 an object-retrieve endpoint embedded in a large API with dozens of closely named kill-chain siblings and no output schema, the description should at minimum say it returns one kill chain record by identifier. It says nothing, so the definition is effectively unusable except by name-guessing.
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 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning about its format, source, or whether it is a numeric pk or an object reference. The parameter is largely self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 is a verbatim restatement of the internal tool name, so its only meaning comes from decoding the name: fetch one EBIOS RM kill chain by id. It never states in plain language what an 'ebios rm kill chain' is or that a single object is returned, and it does nothing to separate it from kill_chains_retrieve, kill_chains_list, or kill_chains_object_retrieve.
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 usage guidance at all: no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the many sibling kill-chain endpoints it could be confused with. An agent has to infer everything from the identifier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.