keel_list_controls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose a useful quirk: the status field is named 'state' and lists its allowed values. However, it does not mention read-only expectations, pagination, ordering, or whether the result set is limited in any way.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The field enumeration and the state-value caveat are both useful and are stated without wasted words or redundancy.

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 operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and the important state-value nuance. It lacks only generic list-behavior details such as pagination or explicit read-only confirmation, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 single optional 'query' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it as a case-insensitive substring filter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', and names the exact resource, 'workspace security controls'. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like keel_list_policies and keel_list_evidence by clarifying which workspace objects it returns. It also enumerates the item fields, leaving no ambiguity about what a control is.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as keel_list_policies or keel_list_evidence. An agent must infer the intended use from the resource name and description. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing hints.

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