probo_controls

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 required scope, governance policy, and the cryptographic receipt sealing, adding behavioral context beyond a simple list 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?

Two sentences effectively communicate the main purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds value, with no extraneous words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers functionality (list controls with specific fields), context (SOC2/EU AI Act), prerequisites (scope), and behavioral notes (governance, receipts). It is fully sufficient.

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 has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info but also does not need to. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair: 'List all Probo compliance controls' and specifies the returned fields (status, category, description) and context (SOC2/EU AI Act). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like probo_health and probo_risks.

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 includes prerequisites ('Requires scope: integrations:probo:read') and governance context ('governed by Arbiter constitutional policy'), guiding when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar listing tools like probo_summary.

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