list_control_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not describe authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description implies a safe read but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, but it is verbose for a simple one-parameter tool. The detailed return structure is informative, though some redundancy exists with the available output schema.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and a documented return structure, the description covers the purpose, input, and output sufficiently. However, it lacks edge case handling (e.g., empty results) and usage context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description simply restates the parameter name and that it is required, adding no extra meaning beyond the input schema. It does not clarify format, constraints, or example values.

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 'List all notes for a given control' with a specific verb (list), resource (notes), and scope (control). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_control_note and update_control_note, but does not explicitly contrast with other list 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?

The description provides basic usage instructions (required controlId) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use, and no prerequisites or context for choosing this tool over others.

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