ciso_assistant_api_resilience_asset_assessments_listList resilience asset assessments with filtering, search, ordering, and pagination to support business impact analysis and asset resilience reviews.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| bia | No | ||
| asset | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds nothing useful about response shape, pagination, filtering behavior, or ordering; 'inject optimized data into the serializer context' is an internal implementation detail irrelevant to the 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 short, but the single sentence is an implementation note rather than a front-loaded purpose statement. Brevity does not help when the content is aimed at maintainers instead of tool callers.
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 an eight-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description omits the resource, filter semantics, pagination, and expected return. It is completely inadequate as caller-facing documentation.
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?
There are eight parameters (id, bia, asset, limit, offset, search, ordering, max_pages) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. It fails to compensate for the schema gap in even a minimal way.
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 comment about overriding a DRF list method and injecting serializer context; it never states that the tool lists resilience asset assessments or what those records represent. The agent must infer the resource from the tool name 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 list endpoint, what the filters mean, or how it differs from sibling retrieve/create/update tools for the same resource. The sentence only describes an internal optimization, not usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.