ciso_assistant_api_resilience_business_impact_analysis_retrieveRetrieve a single business impact analysis record by ID, with unauthorized fields masked, to support resilience and risk assessments.
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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response, warning the agent that data may be redacted. It does not mention what happens on missing/nonexistent IDs, permission failures, or which fields are typically masked.
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 nothing is wasted. However, its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline: the sentence is a footnote about output masking rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool 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 exists, and the description only says a single object is returned with masked fields — it does not describe the shape, the notable BIA fields, or error behavior. For a retrieve-by-id endpoint in a large API surface, an agent cannot tell from this text whether it is calling the right endpoint or what it will receive.
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?
There is one required parameter ('id') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no format, no indication of whether it is the BIA id or a related object id, no hint about where to obtain it. With only one parameter this is a small gap, but nothing compensates for the empty schema.
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 only says it returns 'a single object' — it never states what resource is being retrieved or that this is the Business Impact Analysis record lookup. The resource is inferable only from the tool name/title, and nothing distinguishes it from the numerous sibling retrieve variants (object_retrieve, list, build_table, export_csv).
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 at all on when to use this tool versus the many sibling endpoints, no mention that an 'id' must be obtained from a list/search first, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The reader is left to infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.