find_ctrl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Find a control object' and does not explain search scope, side effects, failure behavior, or what happens when no control is found. This is not enough for an agent to predict the tool's 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?

The structure is clean and front-loaded: a one-line purpose followed by the argument. It contains no filler, but it achieves brevity by omitting information needed for safe use, so it is under-specified rather than optimally 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?

Despite having an output schema and a single parameter, the description leaves key context undefined: what a control object is, which control object is found, and what prerequisite document state is required. An agent familiar with the domain may infer some of this, but the definition is not complete enough for reliable tool selection.

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 single parameter is minimally covered by the input schema, and the description adds that doc_id is the document ID from open_document. This clarifies the parameter's provenance, though it does not explain how to obtain or validate the ID beyond that.

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 operation—find a control object—and the document scope. However, it does not define what counts as a control object or distinguish itself from similar object-related siblings like delete_ctrl or get_tables.

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 gives no guidance on when to use find_ctrl versus alternatives, and no exclusions or selection conditions are stated. The only contextual hint is that doc_id comes from open_document, which is a precondition rather than usage guidance.

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