ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_ro_to_motivation_retrieveRetrieves the link between a risk origin and its motivation in EBIOS RM. Use it to trace why a risk origin is motivated within your risk analysis.
api_ebios_rm_ro_to_motivation_retrieve
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what data is returned, whether the resource must exist, or how it relates to the EBIOS RM study object.
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 only because it is under-specified — a single cryptic identifier string with no front-loaded explanation. Brevity here is not conciseness but absence of content.
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 and a highly opaque domain term ('ro_to_motivation'), the description should explain what entity is retrieved and in what relation to the EBIOS RM study. It provides none of that, so an agent cannot confidently decide to call it.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule the schema alone is sufficient and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Nothing is missing or misleading on the parameter side.
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 only the machine-generated identifier 'api_ebios_rm_ro_to_motivation_retrieve', which restates the tool name without saying in plain language what resource is fetched or what a 'ro_to motivation' is. An agent cannot tell this apart from siblings like ro_to_activity, ro_to_pertinence, or ro_to_resources beyond guessing from the token order.
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, when not to, or which sibling retrieve endpoint to prefer. The description contains zero usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.