Api security exceptions list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond a serializer hint: no mention of pagination, whether it returns all exceptions or a filtered page, or any auth/scope constraints — notable given the openWorldHint.

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?

A single short sentence, but it is spent entirely on framework internals rather than orienting information. It is not front-loaded with purpose, scope, 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?

A 16-parameter, no-output-schema list tool needs far more: filterable fields, pagination (limit/offset/max_pages), ordering syntax, and expected return shape. None of that is present, leaving the definition unusable for correct invocation.

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?

Sixteen parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no descriptions or types beyond 'any'. Fields like status, severity, approver, expiration_date, risk_scenarios, and genericcollection are never explained, so filtering behavior is completely opaque to the agent.

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 says it "overrides the list method" and injects data into a serializer context — internal implementation detail rather than a statement of what the tool does. Only the tool name reveals that it lists security exceptions; the description itself never names the resource or the verb the agent would use.

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?

No indication of when to use this list tool versus siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_security_exceptions_retrieve, security_exceptions_object_retrieve, or the export_csv/xlsx variants. The agent gets no filtering/alternatives guidance at all.

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