ciso_assistant_serdes_batch_download_attachments_createBatch download multiple attachments from CISO Assistant as a single stream in a custom binary format, simplifying retrieval of multiple files in one request.
POST endpoint that streams multiple attachments in a custom binary format.
| 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 openWorldHint, idempotency, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the streaming binary-format detail, but omits how attachments are selected, whether a request body/query is required, and what the custom binary format entails.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse, but not redundant.
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?
The definition is incomplete for a batch download endpoint: the input schema is empty and there is no output schema, yet the description does not explain how the attachments to download are specified or what the binary format contains. An agent cannot determine how to invoke it correctly from this description.
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 has zero input parameters, so per the baseline this dimension scores 4; there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to document parameters that do not exist.
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 names a specific action ('streams multiple attachments') and output format ('custom binary format'), which distinguishes it from the upload sibling by verb. However, it never explains which attachments are selected or how the batch is identified, leaving the core behavior ambiguous.
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 versus batch_upload_attachments, attachment_metadata_retrieve, or individual attachment retrieval. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.