list_controls

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns IDs intended as input for get_control and explains that 'mitigations' is AIGF's name for controls, which helps an agent interpret downstream data. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences provide the action, alternate vocabulary, filter semantics, and the return/next-step hint with no filler. All information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only list tool with an output schema and safe annotations, the description covers purpose, filters, and downstream usage. It does not enumerate possible status values, but the schema leaves status as an open string and the search_status sibling can handle discovery; this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does for the two significant filters: it defines PREV and DET and says status is a filter. Page and page_size are left to their self-explanatory names/defaults, which is acceptable for a list endpoint.

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?

Description begins with a specific action and resource ('List AIGF controls') and clarifies the framework's alternate terminology ('the framework calls them mitigations'), so there is no ambiguity about what is being listed. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_control (single item) and list_risks (different resource).

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 conveys when to use the tool: to list/filter controls by type or status, and to obtain IDs for a follow-up get_control call. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative list/search sibling tools, but the workflow hint is clear enough to route an agent.

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