ciso_assistant_api_security_exceptions_retrieveRetrieve a security exception by ID with unauthorized related fields masked, so you can inspect only permitted exception 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?
The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that unauthorized related fields are masked in the returned object, but it does not mention permission requirements, 404 behavior, or other retrieval semantics.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. It is appropriately terse for a simple retrieve tool, though the terseness contributes to the missing resource and parameter detail.
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 simple retrieval tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description gives a high-level return behavior and masking note. However, it omits the meaning of the required id parameter and does not clarify the returned resource, leaving gaps for an agent to infer from the tool name.
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% and the single required 'id' parameter is undocumented. The description does not explain that the id identifies the security exception to retrieve, so it 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 says it returns a single object, which gives a verb and cardinality, but it never names the resource being retrieved. It relies entirely on the tool name/title to clarify that this is a security exception retrieval tool, so it is only minimally distinguishable from the many other *_retrieve siblings.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling list, object_retrieve, or other security exception endpoints. The phrase 'single object' weakly implies a by-ID lookup, but no conditions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.