nifi_list_controller_services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include state and referencing components and cites the backing endpoint, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about pagination or the visibility semantics of 'visible'.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The endpoint citation is marginally decorative but harmless.

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-value detail is not required, and annotations cover safety. However, with two undocumented parameters and no usage routing against a large sibling set, the definition is only minimally complete.

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% and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. Neither pg_id (including the 'root' default) nor include_ancestors (which controls whether ancestor-scoped services are included) is explained, leaving the agent to guess at their effect.

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?

Names a specific resource (controller services) and scope (visible to a process group), plus what the results contain (state and referencing components). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling nifi_get_controller_service (singular, by id), though the plural 'list' in the name makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus nifi_get_controller_service, nifi_list_parameter_contexts, or nifi_get_process_group_contents. The agent must infer its place in the family from the name alone.

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