list_controls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals a non-obvious authorization behavior: only controls within the caller's clearance and business units are returned. The verb 'List' implies read-only, and the filter behavior is stated, though pagination and default behavior when filters are omitted are not disclosed.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and the second covers filtering and access scope. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: filter options, scope, and authorization filtering. It does not specify whether filters can be combined or the exact business unit value format, but those are minor gaps given the output schema and optional parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds explicit framework values ('soc2', 'iso27001') and clarifies that both parameters act as filters. It does not detail the accepted business unit format, but it adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List in-scope controls.' It then names the available filters and distinguishes this from siblings like get_control, which targets a single control. The scope qualifier combined with clearance language makes the tool's purpose easy to identify.

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: use this tool to list controls filtered by framework ('soc2', 'iso27001') or business unit. It does not explicitly say 'use get_control for a single control' or call out exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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