ciso_assistant_api_resilience_asset_assessments_metrics_retrieveRetrieves resilience metrics for a specific asset assessment by ID, enabling CISO Assistant users to review assessment performance data.
api_resilience_asset_assessments_metrics_retrieve
| 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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds nothing beyond them — no note on what metrics are computed, whether they are cached, or what the 'id' refers to. With annotations present the bar is lower, but zero added context still warrants a low score.
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?
Not verbose but under-specified: a single snake_case identifier is not a description, and there is no front-loaded statement of purpose or result. Brevity here is a defect, not economy.
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 and no annotation detail about the payload, so the description was the only channel to explain the returned metrics shape and the id's meaning — and it supplies neither. Given the dense family of assessment endpoints, an agent cannot reliably pick or call this tool from the definition alone.
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?
One required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description. The agent cannot tell whether the id is an assessment id, asset id, or metrics key — exactly the case where the description must compensate and does not.
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 a verbatim restatement of the tool name, adding no clarifying noun or scope. A reader can guess it retrieves metrics for a resilience asset assessment, but the description itself is tautological rather than explanatory.
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 indication of when to use this metrics endpoint versus the sibling assessment retrieve/list/object_retrieve tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The many near-identical siblings make this omission costly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.