Api applied controls get controls info retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds nothing about scope, filtering, or response shape. Worse, 'viewed or edited' implies a mutation capability that a zero-parameter, readOnly-hinted endpoint cannot have.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, but it is boilerplate rather than front-loaded information — it spends its only sentence on a tautology instead of the one useful fact an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, no parameters, and no annotation-independent detail, the description leaves the agent unable to predict what comes back or when to prefer it over the many near-identical siblings. For a read-only aggregate/info endpoint in a crowded namespace, far more context is required.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; schema coverage is irrelevant here and the baseline of 4 applies. The description neither helps nor hurts on this dimension.

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 text is generic DRF boilerplate that could describe dozens of endpoints in this server; it never says what 'controls info' actually returns or what distinguishes it from siblings like applied_controls_retrieve, applied_controls_control_impact_retrieve, or applied_controls_cascade_info_retrieve. It restates the resource name but not the specific operation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative among the very large applied_controls sibling family. An agent has no basis for choosing this over applied_controls_retrieve or the other info/detail endpoints.

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