fetch_controls

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses that the tool returns a 'prompt' rather than control data, which is critical behavior, but does not explain the rationale or what the prompt is used for. No mention of idempotency or side effects.

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?

The description is very short (two sentences), but it is more underspecified than concise. It does not waste words, but lacks necessary detail. An acceptable score for conciseness, but borderline.

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?

The description fails to fully explain the tool's behavior. It does not mention that an output schema exists, nor does it describe the actual control data (if any) that the prompt relates to. Incomplete for a simple tool given the lack of annotations.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds only 'name of the control' for the parameter, but does not clarify its format, that it is optional (has default), or how it affects the prompt. Insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 states 'To fetch controls' which is nearly tautological with the name. It then describes the return as a prompt, creating confusion between fetching controls and returning a query prompt. The purpose is unclear and potentially misleading.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling fetch tools (e.g., fetch_run_controls, fetch_checks). No context about prerequisites or use cases.

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