list_content_controls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' plus the enumerated fields conveys a read-only retrieval operation and its return shape, but it does not disclose whether the tag/title filters combine, what happens when no match exists, or any permission/pagination 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 short sentences with zero waste: the enumeration of returned fields comes first, then the actionable follow-up. Nothing is buried or repeated.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (id, title, tag, type, text, placeholder), which is the key information an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain, such as filter-combination behavior and empty-result handling.

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 100%, so tag, title, and documentId are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description names id, tag and title as returned fields rather than as filters, and adds no clarification on filter semantics beyond the schema.

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 all content controls (template fields) in the document') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what scope it covers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby readers like read_paragraphs, search_document, or get_paragraph, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives a clear downstream action ('Use set_content_control_text with the id to fill them'), which implies the tool's role in a read-then-fill workflow. However, it never says when to prefer this over search_document or read_paragraphs, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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