Sa Controls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely important trait: the catalog comes from the survey and involves 'no instrument access', so calling it is side-effect free. It also warns that dialog controls are nested under a separate 'dialogs' key, which affects parsing. It stops short of describing result size or any refresh/staleness 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is and what it returns, followed by how to use the output. Dense but every clause carries information; 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still usefully sketches the content shape and the 'dialogs' nesting. The one real hole is the undocumented include_generator flag, and there is no guidance on how large the catalog can be for a given mode.

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 coverage is 75% and the description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond 'from the survey'. Notably, include_generator has no schema description and is not explained in the description at all, so a caller cannot tell what it toggles. Baseline 3 for high-ish coverage is appropriate.

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+resource ('Catalog of every control of a mode') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (name, caption, kind, options, location, risk class). It also differentiates itself from the consuming siblings by naming sa_get / sa_set / sa_press and noting dialog controls appear under a separate 'dialogs' key.

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 tells the agent the workflow context: this is a discovery tool whose names feed sa_get / sa_set / sa_press, and that it is survey-sourced with 'no instrument access' (so it is cheap/safe to call first). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sa_menu or sa_dialog, which also enumerate UI structure, so the routing is clear but not exclusionary.

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