Api findings assessments list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The 'inject optimized data into the serializer context' clause is an internal implementation note that tells a caller nothing about what data is returned, how filtering/pagination behaves, or how results differ from the standard list endpoint.

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 with no filler, which is good, but the brevity comes from omitting substance rather than from economy. What is present is front-loaded on an implementation concern, not on the caller's task.

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 15 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of the returned collection or its relationship to the plain findings list, the definition is far too thin. An agent has essentially no information needed to invoke this 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?

The tool has 15 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever. Fields like 'genericcollection', 'max_pages', 'folder', 'ref_id' and 'ordering' remain completely opaque, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap in any way.

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 never states that the tool lists findings assessments; it only says it 'overrides the list method', an internal implementation detail. An agent reading it cannot determine the resource being listed, and would have to rely on the tool name alone, which is exactly what the description is supposed to avoid.

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 versus any sibling such as ciso_assistant_api_findings_list, findings_assessments_retrieve, or findings_assessments_object_retrieve. The sentence offers no usage context at all.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.