list_compliance_controls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'list all' but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'summaries' entails. For a listing tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'summaries' include, how pagination works, or the tool's scope relative to siblings. For a listing tool in a complex domain with many alternatives, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying a listing operation, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('compliance control summaries for the account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_compliance_frameworks' or 'list_requirement_controls', which reduces specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the compliance and listing categories, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose appropriately.

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