Api applied controls list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a serializer-performance note, which conveys no caller-relevant behavior such as pagination, filtering semantics, or response shape.

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 short, but the single sentence is pure implementation jargon and does not front-load the tool's actual operation. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

A 45-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and no parameter documentation needs far more: the entity listed, pagination model, filter conventions, and ordering syntax. The description supplies none of it.

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?

There are 45 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them — not limit/offset pagination, not the eta__gt/eta__lt filter operators, not ordering, not search. This is the largest gap in the definition.

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 names only an internal implementation detail ('override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than stating that it lists applied controls. An agent reading it learns nothing about the resource, scope, or what a call returns.

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 indication of when to use this list endpoint versus the dozens of sibling applied-controls tools (autocomplete, export_csv, ids, per_status, object_retrieve). Usage can only be inferred from the tool name.

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