ciso_assistant_api_resilience_business_impact_analysis_object_retrieveRetrieves a business impact analysis object by ID for resilience planning. Use it to fetch BIA details for risk and recovery assessments.
api_resilience_business_impact_analysis_object_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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what the retrieved object contains, permission requirements, or error behavior for a missing 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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness; the single string earns no place because it duplicates the name field. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool actually does.
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, no parameter documentation, and a description that is a name echo leave the agent with essentially nothing to decide when or how to call this among hundreds of lookalike retrieve endpoints. Completely inadequate for an object-retrieve operation.
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 single required 'id' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — and adds nothing. An agent must infer that 'id' is the business impact analysis record identifier and what format it takes.
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 the tool's name repeated verbatim ('api_resilience_business_impact_analysis_object_retrieve'), which is pure tautology. It gives no verb-plus-resource statement beyond what the name already encodes and does nothing to distinguish this from the ~800 sibling tools, including the closely related resilience_business_impact_analysis_retrieve and business_impact_analysis_list.
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 guidance whatsoever on when to call this versus alternatives. Siblings like ciso_assistant_api_resilience_business_impact_analysis_retrieve, _list, _object_retrieve, and _metrics_retrieve plausibly overlap, and the description offers no routing signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.