get_framework_controls

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: grouping, default parameter values, token impact, cap of 10 per domain with overflow indication, and error response format. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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 concise yet thorough: a single opening sentence for purpose, then a clear warning, parameter advice, and fallback behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information; no redundancy or fluff.

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 (large frameworks, grouping, cap, error handling, token usage) and absence of output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: response structure, edge cases, and performance considerations. It is fully self-sufficient.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value: explains the trade-off of include_descriptions (2.5x token increase), states default false, and clarifies that framework key must be valid via list_frameworks. This goes well beyond the schema alone.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all SCF controls'), specifies grouping ('grouped by domain'), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_control (single) or search_controls (search). The resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use (for specific framework keys), warns about large frameworks and token usage, advises setting include_descriptions=false by default, and directs to list_frameworks for key discovery. Also describes fallback behavior on invalid framework. The guidelines are comprehensive and actionable.

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