ciso_assistant_api_managed_documents_listRetrieve a filtered list of managed documents with pagination and search options to support compliance and risk management workflows.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| locale | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| policy | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| document_type | 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, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that and actually obscures behavior with a developer-facing note about serializer context injection; it does not 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 brevity here comes from being an internal note rather than a distilled user-facing summary; the one sentence carries no actionable content for a 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?
A ten-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, no parameter docs, and no useful description is severely under-specified. The agent cannot know how to filter, paginate, or interpret results.
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?
Ten parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Filtering fields like folder, policy, document_type, search, locale, ordering, and paging (limit/offset/max_pages) are completely undocumented anywhere.
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 is an internal implementation footnote ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does for a caller. Only the tool name implies it lists managed documents; the description itself never says it retrieves/lists documents or what data is returned.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many sibling alternatives (e.g. managed_documents_retrieve, object_retrieve, templates_retrieve). The agent has no basis for choosing this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.