ciso_assistant_api_resilience_escalation_thresholds_retrieveRetrieve a resilience escalation threshold by ID from CISO Assistant, returning one object with unauthorized related fields masked for access-safe review.
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 behavior, so the bar is lower. The description does add one useful behavioral detail, that unauthorized related fields are masked, but it says nothing about the returned shape or what a missing id yields.
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, but the one sentence spends its space on a generic clinical detail rather than front-loading what the tool retrieves. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
For a retrieve-by-id tool with no output schema, the description should at least identify the resource and the object returned. It omits the escalation thresholds context entirely, leaving the agent dependent on the tool name and annotations.
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 coverage is 0% and the single required 'id' parameter has no description in either the schema or the description. While 'id' is fairly self-evident, the description does not clarify which object's id is expected, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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' and never identifies the resource being retrieved (escalation thresholds). The tool name carries the meaning; the description is essentially a generic restatement of a retrieve-by-id operation.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many siblings such as the list, object_retrieve, or cascade_info variants. It does not state prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.