ciso_assistant_api_resilience_escalation_thresholds_risk_matrix_retrieveRetrieve escalation threshold risk matrix for a resilience requirement by ID. Use it to review how risk levels map to escalation thresholds in CISO Assistant.
api_resilience_escalation_thresholds_risk_matrix_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, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what the endpoint returns, whether the referenced threshold must exist, error behavior on unknown id, or why openWorld is true. Zero value added.
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 token with no waste, so not verbose, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of intent, scope, or return value.
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?
One required parameter, no output schema, and a name that fuses three domain concepts (escalation thresholds, risk matrix, retrieve). With nothing to disambiguate, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to call this correctly against ~900 sibling tools.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description is the only place semantics could be supplied — and it supplies none. It does not say whether 'id' is the escalation threshold id, the risk matrix id, or a nested object key, which is the central ambiguity in this endpoint name.
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 raw snake_case tool name repeated verbatim ("api_resilience_escalation_thresholds_risk_matrix_retrieve") with no natural-language statement of what the tool does. It gives no verb/resource framing an agent could parse. It does not clarify whether it returns a risk matrix linked to an escalation threshold, or the thresholds belonging to a matrix — a distinction that matters given siblings like ciso_assistant_api_resilience_escalation_thresholds_retrieve and ciso_assistant_api_resilience_asset_assessments_risk_matrix_retrieve.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative mentioned. The agent must infer from the identifier alone whether to call this versus the sibling escalation-threshold list/retrieve or the other risk_matrix_retrieve endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.