list_controls_with_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral load. It discloses the returned statuses (NOT_READY, NO_OWNER, NEEDS_EVIDENCE) and frames them as compliance issues, which is useful context. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether specific permissions are needed, or how results are ordered/paginated.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and the example trigger list helps an agent match user phrasing. However, the final 'Returns:' block restates the earlier status list, which is a minor redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed; the description still names the statuses, which is harmless. With zero parameters and a clear trigger context, an agent has enough information to call it correctly, missing only an explicit contrast with list_controls.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description adds no parameter information because none exists.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('controls') with a clear filter criterion (NOT OK / have problems / need attention). The enumerated statuses (NOT_READY, NO_OWNER, NEEDS_EVIDENCE) make it distinguishable from the sibling list_controls, which presumably returns all controls.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases in English and French (e.g., 'bad controls', 'controls à corriger'), telling the agent exactly when to select this tool. It does not name alternatives like list_controls or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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