ciso_assistant_api_requirement_assessments_retrieveRetrieve a requirement assessment by ID with unauthorized related fields masked, enabling authorized access to permitted assessment details while protecting restricted data.
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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: related fields are masked when the caller is unauthorized, which warns about partial data. It stops there, saying nothing about error behavior for a missing or forbidden id.
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 filler, and the masking caveat is stated up front. However, the brevity reads as under-specification rather than discipline, since the sentence omits the resource being returned.
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 carries the full burden of explaining the return value, yet it only gestures at 'a single object' plus masking. It omits the resource identity, what the masked fields look like, and id semantics for a one-required-param retrieval tool.
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 'id' parameter carries no description. The description never clarifies whether the id is the assessment UUID, a requirement node id, or a composite reference, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 'Return a single object', which restates the retrieve suffix without naming the resource. An agent must fall back to the tool name to learn it fetches a requirement assessment, and the masking clause describes output shape rather than purpose.
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 when-to-use guidance at all, despite a crowded sibling set including requirement_assessments_list, object_retrieve, extended_result_retrieve, result_retrieve and cascade_info_retrieve. Nothing tells the agent when this endpoint is preferred over those lookalikes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.