ciso_assistant_api_questions_listList CISO Assistant questions with filters for type, requirement node, search, ordering, and pagination to retrieve relevant compliance data.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| urn | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| requirement_node | 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — 'inject optimized data into serializer context' is an internal concern and gives no information about result shape, page size, or sorting behavior.
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 brevity comes from being under-specified rather than efficient. The single sentence is back-loaded with internal jargon and conveys no actionable information.
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 nine-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no pagination or filtering description. Nothing is provided to let an agent call this correctly; the definition is effectively unusable beyond guessing it returns a list.
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?
Nine parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It never mentions limit/offset, search, ordering, or requirement_node, so an agent has to guess at filters and pagination semantics — precisely the case where the description must compensate.
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 reads as an internal developer note ('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 name/title reveal that it lists questions; the sentence itself describes implementation mechanics, not the resource or action.
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 indication of when to use this versus the many siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_questions_retrieve, questions_object_retrieve, or question_choices_list. No prerequisites, no filtering guidance, nothing an agent could route on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.