ciso_assistant_api_metrology_metric_definitions_cascade_info_retrieveRetrieve cascade preview details for a metrology metric definition by ID to assess downstream dependencies before making 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – it doesn't say what a 'cascade preview' contains, whether it is a dry-run computation, or what the response looks like.
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 it is short because it is under-specified rather than efficient. The single fragment conveys essentially no actionable information to an 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?
No output schema, no annotation of return shape, and a one-word description combine to leave the agent unable to know what calling this returns. For a read-only preview endpoint the bar is modest, but this is below 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 named 'id' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what that id refers to (presumably a metric definition). With the schema carrying no meaning, the description must compensate and it 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?
The description is the fragment "Cascade preview:" – it gestures at a preview of cascade effects but never states a verb+resource, what is being previewed, or what the target resource is. It largely restates the tail of the tool name/title rather than explaining the operation.
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 many sibling retrieve endpoints (e.g. metrology_metric_definitions_retrieve, _object_retrieve, or the other *_cascade_info_retrieve tools). There is no context, prerequisite, or exclusion provided at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.