ciso_assistant_api_task_templates_assigned_to_retrieveRetrieve task templates assigned to the current user so you can review and manage their compliance tasks without manually filtering the full template list.
Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about what is actually returned (e.g., the set of users/entities assigned to task templates) and instead claims export-mixin behavior, which is misleading about the response shape even if not a literal contradiction of the readOnly annotation.
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, so it is not verbose, but brevity only counts when content is relevant. The sentence conveys irrelevant/inaccurate information and gives the agent nothing actionable to front-load.
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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what this read endpoint returns, and it fails entirely — an agent has no idea whether it returns users, ids, or an export file.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule the schema burden is minimal and a 4 is appropriate. The description neither helps nor hurts here, but it certainly does not add meaning.
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 reads 'Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports', which does not match the tool's name (task templates assigned to retrieve) or its apparent purpose of listing assignees for task templates. It is a leaked implementation/mixin docstring rather than a statement of what this endpoint returns, so an agent cannot tell it apart from the many sibling export_csv/export_xlsx tools.
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 alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_task_templates_list or the export_csv/export_xlsx siblings that the description's wording actually points toward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.