ciso_assistant_api_risk_acceptances_retrieveRetrieve a risk acceptance record by ID with unauthorized fields masked, enabling secure access to permitted acceptance details.
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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful non-annotation context: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response, a field-level permission behavior. It does not specify what gets masked or what happens on missing/inaccessible ids.
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 filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (masking of unauthorized fields) is stated up front. It is terse but not padded.
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, so the description carries the burden of explaining return content; it says only 'a single object' plus masking. For a retrieve-by-id tool with an undocumented parameter, it omits the resource identity, id semantics, and any indication of the returned shape.
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 sole parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it or says which kind of id is expected (risk acceptance id vs. a related object's id). With low schema coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.
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 states 'Return a single object', which paraphrases the retrieve operation already implied by the tool name. It never names the resource (risk acceptances) or distinguishes itself from close siblings such as risk_acceptances_object_retrieve or risk_acceptances_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 statement of when to use this tool rather than risk_acceptances_list, risk_acceptances_object_retrieve, or risk_acceptances_state_retrieve. The agent must infer the usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.