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 adds value by disclosing the kind of detail returned (owner, implementation notes, evidence links, audit history) and reinforcing the non-UUID identifier requirement. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 a single sentence with no filler: it front-loads the action and resource, then lists the return fields and the critical identifier constraint. Every word contributes.

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 read operation with two well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the output areas, and the required identifier. With no output schema, the explicit list of returned fields helps, though it does not cover error scenarios or fallback guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, with org_id already sourced and scf_id already described as DOMAIN-NN format and NOT the UUID. The tool description's 'not by UUID' warning repeats schema guidance without adding meaning beyond it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one scoped control in detail') and enumerates the returned content: owner, implementation notes, evidence links, and audit history. This clearly distinguishes it from listing tools and from the sibling scf_get_control, which targets unscoped controls.

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 implies usage when a single scoped control's details are needed and adds the identifier constraint 'Identify by scf_id, not by UUID.' However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like scf_list_scoped_controls for enumeration or scf_update_scoped_control for modifications, leaving some routing to inference.

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