ciso_assistant_api_resilience_escalation_thresholds_listList resilience escalation thresholds with filtering and pagination to review or manage risk escalation criteria.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| quali_impact | No | ||
| asset_assessment | 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds nothing an agent can act on — no mention of pagination behavior, what 'optimized data' means for the response, or any side effects of the serializer-context injection.
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, but terseness here comes from under-specification rather than discipline. The one sentence present is developer-facing jargon that occupies the front-loaded position where the tool's actual purpose should be.
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 list tool with 8 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations explaining return shape — the description should carry nearly the entire burden and instead carries none. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?
The schema has 8 parameters (id, limit, offset, search, ordering, max_pages, quali_impact, asset_assessment) with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. With zero compensating text, an agent cannot tell what the two domain filters (quali_impact, asset_assessment) accept or what max_pages controls.
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 implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') that never states what the tool actually returns. An agent learns nothing about escalation thresholds, the resource being listed, or how this differs from the sibling *_object_retrieve / *_retrieve tools other than what it can infer from the name itself.
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 the alternative retrieval siblings (escalation_thresholds_retrieve, escalation_thresholds_object_retrieve), and no prerequisites or filtering context. The sentence gives the agent no basis for choosing this tool over any other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.