list_controls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'return' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify whether this is a query, search, or list operation, nor does it describe output format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is limited. The structure is clear but could benefit from more detail given the tool's apparent complexity.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'FRMR sets' are, what 'flattened control mappings' look like, or how the parameters filter results. For a tool that appears to query a specialized compliance/control system, more context is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (family, control, source), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean or how they affect the query. The schema shows 'source' has an enum with 13 values, but the description doesn't explain what these sources represent or how they relate to 'FRMR sets'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 the action ('Return') and target ('flattened control mappings across FRMR sets'), which gives a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'flattened control mappings' means in practice and doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_control_requirements' or 'search_definitions' that might also retrieve control-related information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_control_requirements', 'search_definitions', and 'list_ksi', there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or when it's the appropriate choice. The description lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' information.

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