list_requirement_controls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a safe query, if it requires authentication, what the output format looks like, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states the purpose clearly but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output information, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a server with many similar listing tools.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'framework_name' and 'requirement_id' or provide examples for 'datasource_ids'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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') and target ('controls associated with a specific requirement within a compliance framework'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_compliance_controls' or 'list_framework_requirements', which might have overlapping functionality in the same domain.

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 (e.g., 'list_compliance_controls', 'list_framework_requirements'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to 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.