herdr_controller_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is read-only and explicitly notes that fence tokens are not exposed, which is valuable security-relevant behavior. It does not describe output structure or edge cases, but for a simple list operation this is largely sufficient.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a concise safety qualifier. Every word earns its place, making it an efficiently structured description.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description adequately specifies what is returned (identities and expiry), the safety behavior (no fence tokens), and the read-only nature. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying how 'controller leases' relate to the broader 'lease_inventory' tool, but overall the definition is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('controller lease identities and expiry'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from lease-management siblings by scoping to the controller lease aspect, and the 'without exposing fence tokens' qualifier adds clarity about what is not included.

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 the tool is for retrieving controller lease identity and expiry information, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like herdr_lease_inventory or other controller actions. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving usage context mostly inferred.

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