ciso_assistant_api_risk_assessments_quality_check_retrieveRetrieve the quality check for risk assessments to identify data gaps and ensure accuracy before reporting.
Returns the quality check of the risk assessments
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's main job is to explain what the quality check actually evaluates. It does not describe the return payload, validation rules, or any data dependencies, instead largely restating the tool name.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not front-load any meaningful behavioral detail beyond the tool name.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the quality check returns. It does not describe the result shape, the assessment scope, or how this differs from the `_2` endpoint, leaving the agent with insufficient context to call it confidently.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema confirms an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns a quality check for risk assessments. However, it does not explain what a 'quality check' contains, and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling `ciso_assistant_api_risk_assessments_quality_check_retrieve_2`, leaving ambiguity about which one to use.
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, what preconditions apply, or how it differs from the near-identical sibling `_2` endpoint. 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.