ciso_assistant_api_risk_scenarios_retrieveRetrieve a risk scenario by ID with unauthorized fields masked, so you can review only the risk data you are permitted to access.
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: related fields unauthorized for the caller are masked in the response, which affects how the agent should interpret results.
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?
One short sentence with no padding, but it is not front-loaded on purpose — the leading clause describes response shape rather than what the tool does, so the reader must reach the name for the actual operation.
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 parameter documentation, the description should tell the agent what a risk scenario object contains and how the required id is supplied. It only mentions masking, leaving both the input contract and the return contents essentially unexplained.
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%, so the description should explain the single required `id` parameter, but it never mentions it. "Return a single object" only weakly implies lookup by identifier; the format of the id is undocumented everywhere.
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 the shape of the response ("Return a single object") and never names the resource or the verb — the fact that this retrieves a risk scenario by id is inferable only from the tool name. Given siblings like risk_scenarios_object_retrieve and risk_scenarios_list, a reader gets no help distinguishing this tool.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the id being required, and no reference to the very similar sibling endpoints (list, object_retrieve, cascade_info_retrieve). The agent must guess 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.