list_controls

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

No annotations, but 'List' establishes a read-only, non-destructive operation and the description discloses the shape of each entry (checks, scanner, per-component vs project-wide scope). Missing details like ordering or whether results are cached are minor for a zero-arg read tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed immediately by the call-timing advice; every clause earns its place.

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 documents return values, so the description only needs to cover what the tool is and when to call it, and it does both. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description must compensate for and it does not introduce spurious parameter claims.

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 the security controls Draugr can run') and explains the content of each entry (what it checks, backing scanner, scope). It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, list_surveyors, 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?

Gives a concrete call condition: invoke before writing or editing a Saga descriptor so only existing controls are enabled. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the usage context is clear.

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