Api risk assessments list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't reveal that results are paginated, what 'optimized data' means in the response, or any access/scoping behavior. It is not contradictory, just uninformative.

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 the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: the one sentence spent conveys internal serializer plumbing instead of the tool's purpose or usage.

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?

With 19 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail about filtering semantics, the description leaves an agent unable to call the tool correctly beyond guessing. It fails entirely to fill the gaps the structured fields leave.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not name a single parameter. Filters like status, authors, perimeter, risk_matrix, search, ordering, limit/offset and max_pages are all left completely unexplained, including non-obvious ones like genericcollection and due_date__year/month.

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") rather than a statement of what the tool does. Any sense of purpose comes only from the name/title inferring a list of risk assessments; the text itself never says it lists or returns risk assessments, nor distinguishes it from ciso_assistant_api_risk_assessments_retrieve or 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 use this versus the many sibling retrieval tools (retrieve, object_retrieve, per_status_retrieve, action_plan_list). No prerequisites, no mention of filters or pagination behavior that would tell an agent when this is the right entry point.

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