ciso_assistant_api_policies_control_impact_retrieveRetrieves control impact data for policies, enabling review of applied controls and their assessments through the CISO Assistant API.
API endpoint that allows applied controls to be viewed or edited.
| 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?
The description says the resource may be 'viewed or edited', which contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation. No additional behavioral context (what is returned, whether it is a choices/distinct-values endpoint) is provided beyond structured fields.
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 a single short sentence with no padding, but it is boilerplate that fails to front-load any useful purpose or scope, so its brevity comes at the cost of informativeness rather than from 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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what this endpoint returns (presumably control-impact choices). Instead it gives a generic 'viewed or edited' statement that leaves an agent unable to know what a call yields or why it would choose this over sibling retrieve endpoints.
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 has no properties, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-param tool.
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 reads as generic DRF boilerplate ('API endpoint that allows... to be viewed or edited') and does not state the specific resource or action. It even names the wrong domain ('applied controls') for a tool routed under the policies namespace, and does not distinguish it from siblings like policies_impact_effort_retrieve or policies_category_retrieve.
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 versus the many sibling 'retrieve' endpoints, nor any indication that it returns choice values for a field. The agent has to infer purpose from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.