list_controls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output format and the distinction between type and docs id, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has other behavioral traits. For a listing tool, the lack of explicit read-only designation is a minor gap.

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 only two sentences, with the main purpose stated immediately. The second sentence provides critical detail about the output format and cross-tool usage, without wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given that the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description is complete. It explains the key nuance about type vs. docs id, which is essential for correct usage. No gaps remain.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). According to the scoring guide, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because there is none to add. This is 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 starts with 'List all available CAR-TER control types and system features' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (get_control_doc, list_control_examples, insert_example) by clarifying the output is the type token for layouts, while docs ids are kebab-case and used by other tools. This fully clarifies what the tool does and how it differs from similar 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 clear guidance: the returned type is for use in layouts, and warns not to use the docs id in a layout. It implies that for documentation or examples, one should use the sibling tools (get_control_doc, list_control_examples, insert_example) with the docs id. Although it doesn't explicitly state when to use the tool, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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