fgui_list_controllers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful facts — scope is limited to the root component (not descendants) and the FGUI 0.8.8+ version requirement — but says nothing about read-only nature, what happens when no document is open, or error behavior.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scope qualifier and version constraint appended compactly. No filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly complete: scope and version are stated and results need not be described. Only failure/precondition behavior (e.g., requires an active document) is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline for zero-param tools applies. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs.

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 (列出/list), resource (Controller), and scope (当前文档根组件 — the root component of the current document), which cleanly separates it from siblings like fgui_list_transitions and fgui_list_items. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Only weak implied usage (enumerate controllers for inspection) can be inferred, and no sibling tool is named as an alternative or complement (e.g., fgui_set_controller).

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