fetch_leaf_controls_of_an_assessment

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the return structure and error field. It implies a read-only operation ('fetch') and adds behavioral context beyond the schema, though it could mention if there are any side effects.

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, with a clear one-line purpose followed by structured Args and Returns. No unnecessary information, and key points are 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, parameter, and return structure. It could be improved by noting any limitations or differences from sibling tools, but is still complete for typical use.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema: it states the parameter is required (despite schema default) and explains it's 'assessment id or plan id.' This 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 clearly states it fetches 'leaf controls' for a given assessment. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fetch_automated_controls_of_an_assessment' by specifying 'leaf', but lacks explicit differentiation from other similar tools.

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: 'If assessment_id is not provided use other tools to get the assessment and its id.' This helps the agent know when to use this tool vs alternatives, though it doesn't mention specific sibling tools.

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