list_stig_controls

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals that the tool parses local baseline YAML only and makes no external calls, which is critical behavioral context. It also details pagination behavior via 'total' and 'truncated', giving the agent a precise mental model of the operation's side effects and return semantics.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('[READ] List ... controls'), then efficiently covers parameters, return envelope, and alternatives in a structured, information-dense paragraph. Every sentence adds unique value—no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes responsibility for explaining the exact return envelope and item structure, including severity values and advanced_setting semantics. It also covers read-only behavior and sibling tool usage, making the description self-sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

The input schema only defines limit and offset with defaults, but the description explains each parameter's meaning ('max rows returned', 'rows to skip for paging') and adds actionable guidance on how to use them ('truncated tells you definitively whether to raise offset'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('vSphere 9 / VCF 9 STIG-aligned host baseline's controls') and identifies the exact baseline id ('vsphere-stig-v9-subset'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like scan_target and describe_stig_content_sync by stating its role in listing 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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (to list controls of the baseline) and provides alternatives: 'Use scan_target with baseline ... to evaluate these controls' and 'use describe_stig_content_sync for how this catalog is kept in sync.' It also clarifies the read-only, local-only scope, reinforcing appropriate use cases.

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