ciso_assistant_api_asset_capabilities_listList asset capabilities with pagination, search, and ordering while injecting optimized data into the serializer context for efficient API responses.
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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data; the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default page size, or what 'optimized data' actually means to a consumer. The single claim it makes (serializer context optimization) is a server-implementation detail with no observable meaning for an agent.
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, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than from saying something useful. The one sentence it does contain is about internal method overriding, so nothing is front-loaded that helps the caller.
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 five undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description provides none of the information an agent needs to invoke it correctly — no resource identity, no paging contract, no search/ordering syntax.
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% for five parameters (limit, offset, search, ordering, max_pages), and the description supplies nothing — no filtering, paging, or ordering semantics. With low coverage, the description is required to compensate and it does not.
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 'Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context' is an internal code comment; it only implies that something is listed and never names the resource (asset capabilities) that the agent would retrieve. It essentially restates the tool's operational intent without stating what the tool does for a caller.
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 sibling tools, and no conditions or prerequisites. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call this list endpoint or any of the many other asset_capabilities tools (retrieve, object_retrieve, cascade_info, batch_action).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.