list_controls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the output structure (control tree with specific fields) and the substring matching behavior for control_type. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination behavior, the meaning of 'limit', or what happens when no controls match. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output fields, then adds the optional filters and a pointer to the sibling tool. Every clause earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the core purpose, filters, and output fields. However, it doesn't explain the 'source' parameter (which is required), the 'limit' parameter's behavior, or the 'app' parameter. Since the schema provides no descriptions for these, an agent may not know what 'source' refers to. This is a notable gap for a required parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'screen' and 'control_type' parameters (including the substring behavior for control_type), but doesn't explain 'app', 'source', or 'limit'. The description adds some value for two of the five parameters, but the other three remain undocumented in both schema and description. This is a partial compensation, so a 3 is fair.

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 the tool lists a control tree with specific fields (name, type, variant, parent, depth, number of properties) and optional filters by screen and control type. It also distinguishes itself from get_control by noting that get_control is for formulas, which helps an agent understand the scope of this tool.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need the control tree structure, optionally filtered by screen or control type. It explicitly points to get_control for formulas, providing a clear alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention other alternatives like search_formulas, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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