ciso_assistant_api_evidences_cascade_info_retrieveRetrieve cascade information for a specific evidence by ID to preview dependency impacts. Use it before updates to understand downstream effects.
Cascade preview:
| 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 (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read, so the description carries a lower burden. Even against that lower bar it discloses nothing about what a "cascade preview" returns, how deep the cascade goes, or whether it can be expensive — though it does not contradict the annotations.
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?
Two words plus a dangling colon is not conciseness but truncation. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope an agent could act on.
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, no annotation detail beyond safety hints, and an undocumented parameter, the description is the only place an agent could learn what cascade information is returned — and it supplies none of 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?
There is one required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what the id identifies (evidence, revision, related object) or its format. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter in any way.
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 the two-word fragment "Cascade preview:" and never states what the tool actually does with evidences. It adds essentially nothing beyond the tool name (which already contains "cascade info retrieve"), so an agent cannot distinguish this from the hundreds of sibling *_cascade_info_retrieve tools.
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 indication of when to call this versus the sibling retrieve/object_retrieve/list tools for evidences, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid evidence id. The trailing colon implies content was truncated, leaving the agent with zero routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.