ciso_assistant_api_incidents_cascade_info_retrieveRetrieve cascade preview details for a specific incident ID to assess downstream impacts and dependencies before changes.
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 already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that—no explanation of what a cascade preview does, whether it changes state, or what it returns.
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?
"Cascade preview:" is a truncated fragment ending in a colon rather than a concise, front-loaded description. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain what a cascade preview returns and what the id refers to. It provides neither, leaving an agent unable to call the tool confidently beyond guessing that "id" is an incident id.
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, and the description does not say what the id identifies (incident, cascade node, model?) or its format. With schema providing no help, the description was required to compensate and does not.
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?
"Cascade preview:" is a fragment that essentially restates the tool name/title rather than stating a verb+resource+outcome. It hints at a preview of incident cascade effects but never says what is being previewed or returned.
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 alternatives named, and no distinction from sibling tools such as ciso_assistant_api_incidents_retrieve or other cascade_info tools. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.