list_controls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and only_issues usefully defines what counts as an issue (not ready, no owner, no evidence), but pagination, result limits, and any auth/permission requirements are unmentioned.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by compact Args and Returns sections; every line earns its place. The Returns section is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is short and harmless.

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?

A 2-parameter, all-optional list tool with an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Still missing is the differentiation from list_controls_with_issues and any pagination/limit behavior, which matters for an unfiltered 'list ALL' tool.

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% (only bare titles 'Search' and 'Only Issues'), so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines search as matching control name/description and spells out the three conditions that make only_issues true. Minor gaps remain (no matching semantics for search, e.g. substring vs exact).

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('List ALL compliance controls') with scope emphasis on ALL and an optional search qualifier. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_controls_with_issues', which overlaps directly with the only_issues parameter described here.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. The only_issues parameter duplicates the apparent purpose of the sibling 'list_controls_with_issues', yet the description never explains the relationship or when to prefer one over the other.

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