ciso_assistant_api_representatives_listLists representatives from CISO Assistant with filtering, search, ordering, and pagination support, returning serializer context data for API use.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| entity | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| ref_id | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| filtering_labels | 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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own; 'inject optimized data into the serializer context' is a code-level detail an agent cannot act on and says nothing about result shape, pagination, or scoping.
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 is under-specification rather than conciseness: the single sentence is spent on an implementation note instead of leading with what the tool returns.
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 listing tool with no output schema and no documented parameters gets no useful context from the description. An agent cannot determine pagination behavior, accepted filters, or what records come back.
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?
All nine parameters (id, limit, offset, entity, ref_id, search, ordering, max_pages, filtering_labels) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — and it mentions no parameters at all. Names like 'entity' and 'filtering_labels' remain unexplained.
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 Django implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does. Only the tool name reveals that it lists representatives, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as representatives_retrieve or representatives_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 guidance on when to call this versus representatives_retrieve, representatives_object_retrieve, or any filtered listing. The sentence describes framework internals, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.