Search ISM controls

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. It only states the search capability, leaving the agent without awareness of destructive potential (none implied) or other constraints.

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, each adding unique value: first defines action and scope, second gives filter combinations. No redundant or wasted words. Front-loaded with key 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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits details about pagination, ordering, default limit, and the structure of results (e.g., list of IDs vs full objects). The agent lacks full context to use the tool effectively.

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 only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions 'applicability/group/labelPrefix filters' but does not explain other parameters like query, version, limit, offset, or includeStatement beyond their names. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Full-text search across ISM control labels, titles, statements, and group paths', specifying the verb (search), resource (ISM controls), and scope (multiple fields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_control (specific control) and list_controls (listing without full-text).

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 advises combining with applicable filters, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use (e.g., when exact ID is known), but the context is sufficient for typical use.

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