scf_get_control_assessment_composite

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

No annotations provided; description carries burden. Discloses a key behavioral trait: 404 returned if composite row does not exist (async). Also notes response includes status band and gaps. Does not explicitly state read-only or side effects, but implies idempotent read. Adequate for safe usage.

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?

Single sentence, highly concise, yet packs all key information: action, resource, return fields, and error condition. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, description provides sufficient detail about response (composite score, status band, evidence IDs, gaps, per-window detail). Mentions 404 error. Lacks info on authentication or request headers, but standard for API tools. Good overall.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both params (org_id: UUID from another tool; scf_id: DOMAIN-NN format). Description minimally adds context beyond schema, but that's acceptable since schema already clarifies. No param info missing.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource 'rolled-up assessment composite for one SCF control'. It lists return fields (composite score, status band, evidence IDs, gaps, per-window detail) and distinguishes from siblings like 'scf_list_control_assessment_composites' which returns a list.

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?

Clearly states what the tool returns and its single-control scope. Implicitly, use when you need detailed composite for one control rather than a list. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool reference (e.g., 'for a list use scf_list_control_assessment_composites'), but still clear.

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