list_content_controls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by listing the returned fields (tag, alias, type, current value, lock state, placeholder flag, block/inline) and clarifying that the tool targets only the document body. It reasonably implies a read-only listing 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 description is dense but purposeful, front-loading scope and then adding useful detail about output fields and index addressing. The second sentence about the index being the handle for set_content_control_value earns its place, though the long enumeration of types makes it slightly heavier than necessary.

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 the output schema exists and the single parameter is simple, the description covers the essential context: scope, available fields, and how the index relates to another tool. It does not discuss errors or empty documents, but those are minor omissions for a listing tool with this clarity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the file_path parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and there is only one parameter, so this is a minor gap, but the description still adds no semantic value for the input parameter.

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 tool's scope precisely: it enumerates every content control (SDT) in the document body, including types and fields. It also distinguishes itself from fill_form_fields by explicitly noting the types that fill_form_fields skips, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context on when this tool is useful: when you need the full set of content controls beyond what fill_form_fields covers, and when the returned index should be used as the handle for set_content_control_value if tags are missing or duplicated. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the routing guidance is strong.

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