ciso_assistant_api_document_attachments_retrieveRetrieve document attachments from CISO Assistant to access files linked to GRC records, supporting compliance and risk documentation workflows.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered externally. The description adds nothing behavioral—no return shape, no scope, no note that 'optimized data' means extra serializer fields—and its 'list method' phrasing pulls against the retrieve naming, though it does not directly 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 short, but the single sentence is internal-engineering jargon that spends its words on implementation ('serializer context') instead of the front-loaded purpose an agent needs. Brevity here comes from omission, not discipline.
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 no output schema, a 0-param read tool, and a dense sibling set, the description is the only place to explain what is returned and how it differs from the other document-attachment retrieve variants. It says none of that, leaving the definition functionally empty.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic load and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to interpret inputs, and nothing misleads about them.
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 is a Django implementation comment ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does for a caller. It never names the resource being retrieved (document attachments) or what an agent would get back, and it even describes a 'list' method for a tool named 'retrieve', muddling the intent.
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 document attachments, no distinction from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_document_attachments_retrieve_2, object_retrieve, or file_retrieve, and no prerequisites. An agent has 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.