nifi_list_controller_services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The one genuinely additive fact is '(includes inherited)', which tells the agent the result set is broader than the group's own services — useful scope context. Beyond that, nothing is said about result ordering, size, or the compact-vs-full payload distinction.

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?

A single economical sentence with the scoping qualifier placed immediately after the resource. It is front-loaded and wastes nothing, though it is a fragment rather than a complete, self-contained statement of the action.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list with an output schema, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted and the annotations carry the safety burden. What is missing for a complete definition is any usage framing relative to the many sibling list/get tools and any acknowledgement of the two input fields that shape the response.

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 description mentions no parameters at all. The nested schema does carry descriptions for both fields ('verbose' = full redacted JSON vs compact view; 'process_group_id' = id or 'root'), so the agent is not fully stranded, but the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage at the top level and the description does nothing to compensate for the default-'root', minLength-1, or verbosity semantics.

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 names the resource (controller services) and the scoping unit (a process group, including inherited services), which lets an agent distinguish it from nifi_list_controller_service_types (types, not instances) and nifi_get_controller_service (single instance). The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, so it falls short of a fully explicit 'list X for Y'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. An agent must infer from the name that this is the enumeration counterpart to nifi_get_controller_service, and nothing tells it when listing inherited services is preferable to fetching a single service or listing types.

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