list_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add two useful behaviors: business-unit inheritance from the control and clearance-based masking of free-text notes. However, it omits other operational traits such as default scope, filtering behavior, or whether results are restricted to the current user.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; each adds either the resource definition or a relevant behavioral detail. It is appropriately compact, though the opening noun fragment could be reshaped into a clearer verb-first statement.

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 optional-parameter list operation and an output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not essential. Still, the unexplained 'kind' parameter and lack of usage guidance leave an agent uncertain how to scope a call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly explains control_id via 'the control it supports.' The 'kind' parameter is entirely unexplained, including possible values, defaults, and how it filters results.

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 ('evidence artifacts supporting controls') and the tool name supplies the list action, so the core purpose is discernible. It does not explicitly contrast with evidence-related siblings like get_evidence_gaps, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given for when to call list_evidence instead of list_controls, get_evidence_gaps, or list_findings. The inheritance note hints at a control-based relationship but does not state a selection condition or provide exclusions.

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