ciso_assistant_api_requirement_assessments_to_review_retrieveRetrieve requirement assessments pending review so you can inspect and edit compliance findings.
API endpoint that allows requirement assessments 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 states the endpoint allows assessments to be 'viewed or edited', which contradicts the `readOnlyHint: true` annotation declaring this a non-mutating read. No other behavioral context (pagination, filtering, permissions) is provided beyond what the annotations already say.
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?
A single short sentence with no padding, so it is efficient, but it is also entirely generic and front-loads no actionable information. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than discipline.
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 and no parameters, the description is the only place the 'to review' semantics and the shape of the returned list could be explained, and it says nothing. For a filtered-retrieval endpoint in a very dense sibling namespace, this is not enough for an agent to call 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 takes zero parameters and has 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless 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 name says 'requirement_assessments_to_review_retrieve', implying a filtered list of assessments pending review, but the description only offers the generic boilerplate 'allows requirement assessments to be viewed or edited.' It never explains what 'to review' means, so the one distinguishing feature of this endpoint versus the plain `requirement_assessments_retrieve` or `requirement_assessments_todo_retrieve` siblings is left unstated.
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 appears at all. With siblings such as `requirement_assessments_todo_retrieve`, `requirement_assessments_per_status_retrieve`, and `requirement_assessments_list`, the agent is given no basis to pick this tool over them, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.