Api findings assessments cascade info retrieve

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing further: it does not say what a "cascade preview" actually returns (objects affected, counts, deletion impact) or whether it is a dry-run of a delete/move operation.

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 brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency: a trailing colon and no sentence means there is no front-loaded statement of purpose or return shape to anchor the agent.

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 parameter documentation, and no annotations explaining semantics, the description should explain what the preview payload contains and what object it applies to. It supplies none of that, leaving a read-only, openWorld cascade tool effectively unexplained.

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 required parameter `id` has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — yet it says nothing about whose ID this is or what resource type it must reference. The generic name makes the identifier's target ambiguous even though there is only one parameter.

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 two-word fragment, "Cascade preview:", that names a concept but no verb or resource. It implies the tool previews downstream effects of an operation on a findings assessment, but an agent must infer that from the tool name rather than the description.

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 how it differs from the dozens of sibling cascade_info_retrieve tools (findings, journeys, actors, users, etc.). Nothing routes the agent here versus ciso_assistant_api_findings_cascade_info_retrieve or the assessment retrieve sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.