ciso_assistant_api_vulnerabilities_cascade_info_retrieveRetrieve cascade information for a vulnerability by ID to preview related impacts and dependencies 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about what 'cascade' means in practice (e.g. whether it enumerates dependent objects that would be affected by deletion) or what the response contains, which is the one piece of context this terse phrase should supply.
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?
Two words are technically concise but the phrasing is a label fragment, not a sentence, and it is under-specified rather than economical. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content.
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?
A one-parameter read endpoint with an undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no explanation of the 'cascade' semantics leaves the agent unable to call it correctly or interpret the result. The description is effectively absent.
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 coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the required 'id' parameter — not its type meaning, not which object's id it is. An agent cannot tell from either source that this is the vulnerability's identifier.
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 text 'Cascade preview:' gestures at a preview of cascading effects but never names the resource (vulnerabilities) or the operation clearly. An agent must rely on the tool name to learn this relates to cascade info for vulnerabilities, which is tautological restatement rather than explanation.
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 indication of when to call this versus the many sibling cascade_info_retrieve tools or the plain vulnerabilities_retrieve. Nothing tells the agent what question this answers or what prerequisite id must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.