list_catalog_controls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It explains pagination behavior (offset, limit) and return structure (Page_Response with hasMore). However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, though it is a read operation.

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?

The description is a well-structured docstring with purpose, parameter list, and return explanation. It is close to minimal but includes parameter details that are not in the schema, making it efficient. One slight redundancy: mentioning both 'offset' and 'limit' with defaults could be more concise.

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?

Given the complexity of listing controls from catalogs with pagination, and with many sibling list tools, this description provides complete information: the return structure (Page_Response with keys) and example fields (id, title, description). No output schema exists, so the return description is essential and sufficient.

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%, but the description fully explains each parameter: parent_doc_uuid scopes to a single catalog, offset is zero-based pagination, limit is 1-100. This adds significant meaning 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?

The description clearly states 'List controls within OSCAL Catalog documents' and specifies that controls are structural elements with token IDs like 'ac-1'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_catalogs (lists catalogs) and list_catalog_groups (lists groups).

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 provides context for use (listing controls from a catalog, optionally scoped by parent_doc_uuid) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_catalog_groups or list_profiles.

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