ciso_assistant_api_answers_listList and filter CISO Assistant answer records with pagination, search, ordering, and question or assessment filters.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| question | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| requirement_assessment | 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, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only an internal detail about serializer context injection, which conveys no behavioral information (auth, pagination, filtering, result ordering) an agent could use, and borders on meaningless to a caller.
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, so there is no verbosity, but the content is under-specified rather than concise: the one sentence is spent on an internal implementation note instead of front-loading what the tool returns or how to call it.
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 paginated list endpoint with 8 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what is listed, what the filters do, and how paging works. Instead it offers only a serializer-internals remark, leaving the definition functionally inadequate for correct invocation.
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?
There are 8 parameters (id, limit, offset, search, ordering, question, max_pages, requirement_assessment) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about any of them, leaving filter semantics, pagination behavior, and the meaning of requirement_assessment/question completely undocumented.
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 a developer-facing docstring ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does. It implies listing but never names the resource (answers) or the operation scope in terms an agent could act on, so it only weakly distinguishes this from siblings like answers_object_retrieve or answers_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 at all: no mention of when to list answers, when to use answers_object_retrieve instead, or any preconditions. The sentence discusses an internal implementation override, which gives the 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.