ciso_assistant_api_findings_assessments_status_retrieveRetrieve the status of findings assessments to monitor compliance review progress and identify open, closed, or pending assessment states.
api_findings_assessments_status_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, and that the tool is non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no mention of what status values are returned, scoping, or auth requirements — so it fails to add context even where the bar is lowered.
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 an unbroken identifier with no front-loaded explanation. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not conciseness.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what the returned status payload represents, yet it says nothing. Annotations cover behavior, but the informational content of the call is entirely 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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies because parameter semantics are not a concern for a zero-argument endpoint.
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 literally the identifier 'api_findings_assessments_status_retrieve' repeated back, which is a tautology rather than a statement of purpose. An agent gets no natural-language explanation of what status is being retrieved or over which findings/assessments.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no differentiation from the numerous highly similar siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_findings_status_retrieve or the other *_status_retrieve endpoints in this API family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.