ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_studies_listRetrieves paginated EBIOS RM risk studies with search, folder, and ordering filters to support risk assessment review in CISO Assistant.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| genericcollection | 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, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing an agent can act on: 'inject optimized data into the serializer context' is a server-side rendering note, not a disclosure about filtering, pagination, permissions, or what the response contains.
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 spent on an implementation note rather than on what the tool does. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.
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 an 8-parameter list endpoint with no parameter documentation and no output schema, the description should at minimum identify the resource and explain the query knobs. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly.
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?
Eight parameters (id, folder, search, ordering, limit, offset, max_pages, genericcollection) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. With the schema silent, the description was the only place to explain filtering and pagination semantics, and it says nothing.
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 talks about an internal implementation detail ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than stating that it lists EBIOS RM studies. Only the word 'list' hints at the operation; the resource is never named and the sentence would be meaningless to an agent that has not read the source code.
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 call this versus siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_studies_retrieve, _object_retrieve, or the filtered helper endpoints. No conditions, no exclusions, no alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.