ciso_assistant_api_risk_acceptances_cascade_info_retrieveRetrieve cascade preview information for a risk acceptance by ID to understand downstream effects before making changes.
Cascade preview:
| 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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — not what the preview contains, not whether it depends on existing deletions/links, nothing.
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 two-word dangling fragment ending in a colon is not a description; there is no front-loaded purpose statement and no content after the colon.
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 tool with an undocumented required parameter and no output schema, the description must carry essentially all the meaning, and it carries none.
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, and the description says nothing about it — not whether it is a risk-acceptance PK, a UUID, or what object the cascade applies to. The description fails to compensate for the schema 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 is the fragment 'Cascade preview:', which gestures at previewing cascade effects but never says what resource, what is previewed, or what is returned. It barely distinguishes this from the dozens of sibling *_cascade_info_retrieve tools, all of which would presumably also be 'cascade previews'.
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 is mentioned. The agent gets no signal for choosing this over ciso_assistant_api_risk_acceptances_retrieve, _object_retrieve, or the cascade_info siblings of other models.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.