scf_get_scoped_control

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description enumerates returned data (owner, notes, overrides with reason, set_at/set_by, procedure_document_id, last validation) which adds useful context, but doesn't explain how these differ from the base control's fields – a meaningful part of the behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates outputs efficiently. Slightly list-like but 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?

With a readOnly annotation and a fully-covered schema, the missing piece is how this 'scoped control' concept relates to plain scf_get_control, and there is no output schema to compensate. Adequate but with a clear gap for an agent choosing among the many control-related siblings.

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% and both parameters already carry detailed descriptions including the DOMAIN-NN format. The description's 'Identify by scf_id, not UUID' note is redundant with the schema description for scf_id.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get one scoped control') and lists the fields returned, which differentiates it from scf_get_control and scf_list_scoped_controls. The distinction from siblings is implied through the returned-field enumeration rather than stated outright.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'Identify by scf_id, not UUID' note is a scoping hint, not usage guidance, and the description never names sibling alternatives like scf_list_scoped_controls or scf_get_control.

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