ciso_assistant_api_question_choices_retrieveRetrieve a question choice by ID and mask unauthorized related fields, so you can access permitted choice data while protecting restricted information.
Return a single object with unauthorized related fields masked.
| 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one real contribution beyond that is that unauthorized related fields are masked in the response – a genuine output-shaping behavior an agent must know when interpreting missing data.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded and free of padding, but it omits the essential subject of the operation. It is terse without being informative.
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 describe the returned object and its masking behavior in more depth, and it should identify the resource being fetched. For a retrieval tool with an undocumented id parameter and no sibling differentiation, this is too thin.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single required 'id' parameter, its type, or that it identifies a question choice. With no compensating explanation, the agent gets nothing about parameters from the description.
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 says only that it returns 'a single object' – the resource (a question choice) is inferable only from the tool name and is never stated. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling retrievers such as ciso_assistant_api_question_choices_object_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_questions_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 statement of when to use this tool, what it requires (a valid question-choice id), or how it differs from the list/object_retrieve siblings. The only implied guidance is 'single object', which at least rules out bulk listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.