Api reference controls list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description should add value on pagination, filter interactions, or return shape. Instead it offers only serializer-implementation jargon with no behavioral information an agent can act on.

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 it is not bloated, but a sentence that only conveys internal serializer mechanics does not earn its place; concision without useful content is under-specification, not quality.

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 a 13-parameter filtered list endpoint with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the list semantics. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is present.

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?

Thirteen parameters (id, urn, limit, offset, search, folder, category, findings, ordering, provider, max_pages, csf_function, filtering_labels) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — yet it mentions none of them, not even limit/offset pagination.

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 implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does. It never names the resource (reference controls) or says it returns a list of them; an agent must infer that from the tool name and title alone.

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 instead of siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_reference_controls_retrieve or the many other *_list tools. The sentence describes framework internals, not usage conditions.

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