probo_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. It adds meaningful behavioral context: a required read scope, governance by Arbiter policy, and a ProofLink cryptographic receipt for every call. This goes beyond a bare list operation, though it does not describe the response format or 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 concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and output fields; the second adds auth scope and behavioral guarantees. No redundant or fluff content; every sentence 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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states the resource, scope ('all'), the displayed attributes (status, category, description), the required permission, and the ProofLink receipt behavior. Lacks explicit mention of response shape, but the fields listed in the purpose serve as that.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed.

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 opens with 'List all Probo compliance controls with status, category, and description (SOC2/EU AI Act)', using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Probo compliance controls'), and clarifies scope ('all') and the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like probo_risks or get_compliance_status.

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 implies usage when one needs to enumerate compliance controls, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The statement 'Requires scope: integrations:probo:read' is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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