Browse PC controls

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world traits, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the operation touches only a static public catalog and never probes the host, which matters for an agent deciding between this and diagnose/collect_context.

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 short sentences, scope constraint front-loaded, zero filler. Everything stated earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only nature is well covered. The gap is the two undocumented parameters, neither of which is clarified anywhere in the definition.

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?

Both parameters ('category', 'include_commands') have 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place meaning could be added. It says nothing about what category values are accepted or what include_commands does, leaving the schema's bare types and a default as the only signal.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the public, read-only PC control catalog') with clear scope qualifiers. It implicitly separates itself from inspection-oriented siblings like inspect_setup and diagnose, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 contrast 'never inspects the host' hints that this is a metadata-browsing call rather than a live diagnostic, which implies when to reach for it. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_setup_catalog or the inspect_* siblings.

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