get_asset_control_hierarchy

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

The description discloses that only id and name are returned while preserving hierarchy, and includes a structured Args/Returns section. However, it lacks information on authentication requirements, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only (no annotations provided).

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 main purpose and uses a structured Args/Returns format for clarity. While it is moderately sized, some minor redundancy in the Returns section could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description covers the return structure well, especially with the nested planControls format. However, it omits usage context, error behavior, and any prerequisites, leaving gaps for an agent to select the tool appropriately.

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 parameter 'assetId' is described only as 'Asset id,' which is essentially a restatement of the schema field name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description offers minimal added meaning and does not clarify the expected format or constraints.

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 'Retrieve the complete control hierarchy for an asset with nested plan controls,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the hierarchical structure and limited return fields (id and name only).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other fetch tools that return control details or different hierarchical views. There is no mention of preconditions or context for appropriate use.

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