fetch_run_controls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the return type (list of controls with fields) and an error field, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The description is adequate for a simple fetch operation.

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 multi-sentence with a conditional usage note, a follow-up suggestion, and a detailed return field list. While structured, the first sentence has grammatical issues and the list is lengthy. It could be more concise.

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 tool is simple (fetch by name), and the description lists all return fields, which compensates for the lack of schema descriptions. It does not explain error handling beyond the error field, but overall it provides sufficient context for the agent to use it correctly.

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 for its single parameter 'name'. The description adds 'Control name', which provides semantic context beyond the schema's type-only definition. This compensates for the schema 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 clearly states it fetches controls matching a given name, as a fallback when execute_cypher_query returns no result. It specifies the verb (get) and resource (controls), and distinguishes its usage from a sibling tool.

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?

The description gives explicit when to use ('when there is no result from execute_cypher_query') and suggests a follow-up tool (fetch control meta data). However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the one condition.

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