scf_list_controls

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses pagination via offset/limit, returned fields, and filtering capabilities. It doesn't mention destructive effects, auth needs, or rate limits, but as a read-only listing tool, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with main purpose and returned fields, then filtering options. No redundant information.

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?

No output schema, but description specifies returned fields. Covers pagination and filtering. Could mention default sorting or order, but overall adequate for a listing tool with 5 optional parameters.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by explaining that domain and framework values can be obtained from scf_list_domains and scf_list_frameworks respectively, and by summarizing the returned fields.

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 clearly states it lists SCF security controls from a reference catalog, specifies returned fields (SCF ID, title, description, mapped frameworks), and mentions filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scf_list_domains and scf_list_evidence_catalog by focusing on controls.

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?

Description explains filtering by domain, framework, or free-text search, implying use cases for browsing the reference catalog. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools or mention when not to use, but context among siblings is clear enough.

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