list_ai_act_controls

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

The description details the output structure (status, notes, evidence URL) but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, though 'List all' implies no side effects. With no annotations provided, a more explicit declaration of non-destructiveness would be ideal.

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 two short paragraphs with no extraneous words. The first paragraph defines the tool's action and output, the second offers an alternative. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 and zero parameters, the description completely covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use an alternative. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds significant meaning by describing the pre-seeded articles and the output format, compensating fully for the empty schema and providing all necessary context.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'AI Act compliance controls', specifying what it returns (their status). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_ai_act_score (aggregated percentage) and update_ai_act_control (mutates controls), making purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs users to use get_ai_act_score for aggregated compliance percentage, providing clear when-to-use guidance vs alternatives. It also explains that 6 articles are pre-seeded, setting expectations for the tool's scope.

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