List ISM controls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions pagination and filters but lacks details on pagination defaults, maximum results, sorting, authentication needs, or response format. This is insufficient for a safe agent call.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and filters. No redundant text, though pagination behavior could be more explicit without bloating length.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 6 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers filtering but lacks pagination details, response structure, and version context, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 50%, and the description repeats information already in the schema for applicability, group, and labelPrefix. It adds no new meaning for version, limit, or offset, leaving those parameters underdocumented.

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 specific verbs ('Returns') and resource ('list of ISM controls'), clearly stating it is paginated and filterable. It indirectly differentiates from siblings like get_control (single) and search_controls (broader search) by emphasizing filtering capabilities.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_control, get_controls, or search_controls. The description implies use for filtered listing but does not state when not to use it or provide context for selection among siblings.

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