ciso_assistant_api_requirement_assessments_cascade_info_retrieveRetrieve cascade information for requirement assessments to preview downstream impacts and 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context about what the preview contains, its scope, depth, or any side effects beyond the annotations.
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?
The phrase is short but under-specified rather than concise. It is not front-loaded with actionable information, and the colon suggests incompleteness rather than a finished definition.
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?
Given a simple single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should at least explain what cascade information is previewed and what the id refers to. Annotations cover safety, but the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 has one required parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It never mentions the id or what it identifies, leaving the sole parameter completely undocumented.
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 "Cascade preview:", which restates the title/name rather than stating a specific verb and resource. It does not clarify that this is a requirement-assessment cascade preview or how it differs 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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the standard retrieve or other cascade tools. The two-word phrase leaves usage entirely to inference from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.