ciso_assistant_api_task_nodes_evidences_listRetrieve and list evidences associated with a specific task node using its ID, with options for pagination, search, and ordering.
api_task_nodes_evidences_list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top of them - no mention of whether results are scoped to a task node, how evidences relate to revisions, or any pagination/ordering behavior despite exposing limit, offset, ordering and max_pages.
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 only a handful of characters, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness - there is no front-loaded statement of purpose, scope, or return shape. The token count is low only because the description contains no information.
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 a six-parameter paged listing endpoint with no output schema and no annotation explanation of return values, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the call returns or how to page through it without guessing from the schema alone.
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?
Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no parameter information in the description at all. The required 'id' is never explained (task node id? evidence id?), and limit/offset/search/ordering/max_pages are left completely opaque, so the description does nothing to close a significant documentation gap.
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 literally the tool name repeated ("api_task_nodes_evidences_list") with no added prose. An agent can only infer from the raw identifier that it lists evidences attached to a task node, and the snake_case slug is not even a grammatical statement of purpose. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_task_nodes_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_evidences_list.
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 tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related alternatives (evidences_list, task_nodes_retrieve, task_nodes_remove_evidence). The sole hint is the word 'list', which only weakly implies a read/collection operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.