ciso_assistant_api_questions_cascade_info_retrieveRetrieves cascade information for a CISO Assistant question by ID so you can preview related impacts 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 readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing further: it doesn't say whether this is a dry-run style preview, what dependency traversal it performs, whether it's side-effect-free by design, or how large the result can be. "Preview" is the only behavioral hint and it is left unexplained.
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 a truncated fragment rather than a concise statement, so brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded verb or object an agent can act on.
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 output schema, no parameter documentation, and no annotation-independent detail, an agent cannot infer the return shape, the meaning of the id, or when the result would be useful. The definition is not adequate for invoking the tool correctly.
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 single required parameter id is completely undocumented; the description never mentions it or what entity it identifies. The description does nothing to compensate for the bare schema.
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 two-word fragment that largely restates the tool name (questions cascade info retrieve) rather than describing the operation. It hints that something is previewed for a question, but never says what cascade information is returned or what the tool actually does with the id.
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 exclusions, and no mention of the many siblings that offer similar cascade-info retrieval (journeys, assets, frameworks, etc.). The agent is given nothing to decide between this and a plain questions_retrieve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.