ciso_assistant_api_chat_questionnaire_questions_listList and retrieve questionnaire questions with pagination, search, ordering, and optional questionnaire run filtering for CISO Assistant assessments.
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 | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| questionnaire_run | 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, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations — no return shape, no pagination behavior for limit/offset/max_pages, no filterable fields. It doesn't contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context.
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 sentence, so there's no bloat, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the sentence spends its words on an implementation note that gives the agent no actionable information.
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?
With seven undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a description that only mentions an internal serializer optimization, an agent lacks nearly everything needed to invoke this tool correctly — what it returns, how to filter, and how pagination parameters interact are all missing.
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% across all seven parameters (id, limit, offset, search, ordering, max_pages, questionnaire_run), and the description does not clarify any of them. Nothing distinguishes, say, limit from max_pages or explains what questionnaire_run filters by. This is a severe gap.
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 restates an internal Django implementation detail ("Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context") rather than stating what the tool actually does for an agent — presumably listing questionnaire questions. An agent can infer that it returns a list of chat questionnaire questions from the tool name, but the description itself does not deliver that purpose.
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 tool, when not to, or which sibling is the alternative (e.g., object_retrieve, cascade_info_retrieve, batch_action_create). The single sentence describes an internal override and offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.