ciso_assistant_api_question_choices_listLists question choices filtered by question, with search, ordering, and pagination support to retrieve relevant compliance assessment options.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| urn | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| question | No | ||
| max_pages | 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a lower burden. Instead of adding pagination behavior, return shape, or filtering semantics, it spends its only sentence on internal serializer plumbing that means nothing to a caller.
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, so there is no bloat, but that sentence is front-loaded with an internal implementation detail rather than the user-facing operation. Conciseness without useful content does not earn the score.
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 8 undocumented parameters, no output schema and no annotations explaining filtering or pagination, the description leaves an agent unable to call the tool correctly. Nothing compensates for the schema gaps.
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 schema has 8 parameters at 0% description coverage, including limit, offset, search, ordering and question. The description explains none of them, leaving search syntax and ordering fields entirely undocumented.
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 implementation note about overriding the list method to inject data into a serializer context, not a statement of what the tool returns. It never says it lists question choices, nor how it differs from siblings like question_choices_retrieve or question_choices_object_retrieve.
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, no mention of alternatives (question_choices_object_retrieve, question_choices_cascade_info_retrieve), and no prerequisites. An agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.