fetch_automated_controls_of_an_assessment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only lists return fields and an error message, but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, or the inconsistency between the description (required) and schema (optional). This minimal disclosure is insufficient for full transparency.

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 relatively concise but includes the return structure, which is redundant given the output schema exists. It could be more streamlined without losing essential information.

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?

The description provides basic context for parameter and usage, but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like fetch_controls. The mismatch between required and optional undermines completeness. Given the output schema covers returns, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by clarifying assessment_id as 'Assessment id or plan id' and noting its requirement. However, it contradicts the input schema which has a default and no required flag, reducing clarity.

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 tool fetches 'only the automated controls' for a given assessment, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_controls and fetch_leaf_controls_of_an_assessment by emphasizing 'automated'.

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 advises using other tools if assessment_id is not provided, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It implies the ID is necessary, but could more explicitly compare with sibling tools for fetching controls.

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