ciso_assistant_api_actors_listList actors from CISO Assistant with pagination, search, and ordering, returning optimized data for compliance and risk management workflows.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a vague internal reference to 'optimized data' in a serializer context, which does not tell the caller anything about the response shape or pagination. It does not contradict the annotations.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is technically concise, but the sentence spends its one line on framework internals rather than caller-relevant information. Brevity here comes at the cost of usefulness.
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?
No output schema, zero parameter documentation, and a five-parameter list endpoint means the description should explain pagination, filtering, and ordering. Instead it explains a Django serializer override, leaving an agent unable to call the tool correctly beyond trying the defaults.
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?
Five parameters (limit, offset, search, ordering, max_pages) have 0% schema description coverage and the schema types are untyped anyOf stubs, so the description carries the full burden. It explains none of them — not even that limit/offset control pagination or what search/ordering accept.
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 is an internal implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does for a caller. An agent must infer from the name that this lists actors; nothing is said about the resource, the returned collection, or how it differs from actors_retrieve or actors_object_retrieve.
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 siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_actors_object_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_actors_cascade_info_retrieve, and no indication of prerequisites or pagination expectations. The description gives an agent nothing to route on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.