ciso_assistant_api_journey_steps_cascade_info_retrieveRetrieve cascade preview information for a specific journey step by ID to assess downstream impacts and dependencies.
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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as what the preview contains, whether it traverses related journey steps, or any permission/rate-limit details.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. There is no front-loaded explanation of purpose or behavior to orient 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?
Even for a simple read-only tool, the description omits what a cascade preview returns and what the required id identifies. Annotations cover safety hints, but no output schema exists and the description does not fill the remaining semantic gap.
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 schema has one required string parameter, id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain whether this id refers to a journey step, a journey, or another entity, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.
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 only the fragment 'Cascade preview:' and never states a specific verb or resource beyond echoing part of the tool name. It does not distinguish this journey-step cascade preview from the many 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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternative cascade/retrieve tool should be selected instead. The fragment gives no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.