convoy_list_controllers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: read-only and non-waking (no side effects on TouchDesigner), plus the implicit skip of unreachable hosts. It says nothing about permissions, result shape, pagination, or failure behavior, so coverage remains partial.

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 tightly written sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the behavioral guarantee second. No filler, no repetition of the name or schema.

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?

For a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and safety behavior, and even notes that only reachable hosts are queried. The remaining gap is the absence of any return-format or empty-result expectation.

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 100% and all three filters are self-documented as optional host/node/namespace selectors, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, such as whether filters combine as AND or how multiple filters interact.

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 states a specific verb ("List") and enumerates the exact resources returned: controller sessions, selected targets, leases, and active work. The scope ("across reachable Convoy hosts") is precise, though it never names a sibling such as convoy_list_nodes to distinguish itself explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: it reads as a discovery/monitoring call, and "never wakes TouchDesigner" hints that it is the safe choice when you don't want side effects. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative sibling.

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