ciso_assistant_api_entities_dora_roi_lint_retrieveValidate DORA ROI requirements and return linting results to identify compliance gaps and support remediation.
Validate DORA ROI requirements and return linting results.
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds that it returns linting results, confirming a read-only validation operation. However, it does not describe what lint checks are performed, error behavior, or the response shape, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 immediately states the action and return type, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter validation tool.
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 zero parameters and rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description needs to explain the output since there is no output schema. It mentions 'linting results' but does not describe their format, severity levels, or content, which is a meaningful gap for an agent interpreting the response.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the schema is empty as expected.
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 specific verb and resource: validate DORA ROI requirements and return linting results. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool ciso_assistant_api_entities_generate_dora_roi_retrieve, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description implies usage for checking DORA ROI compliance through linting, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention the generate_dora_roi sibling or clarify whether validation should occur before or after generation, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.