scf_get_scoped_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only describes what the tool returns, not side effects or non-destructive nature. It does not contradict any annotations. The transparency is adequate but lacks explicit read-only hint or preconditions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and result. No unnecessary words. Each sentence adds essential information (detail content and identification method).

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 get operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to identify the record. It is sufficiently complete, though a note about read-only nature or return format could enhance it further.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying that scf_id is not the UUID but a DOMAIN-NN format identifier, which helps avoid common misuse. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'scoped control', and specifies the detail level including owner, implementation notes, evidence links, and audit history. It distinguishes from listing by mentioning 'in detail' and clarifies identification method (by scf_id, not UUID), differentiating from other get 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?

The description implies when to use: to retrieve a single scoped control with full details. It specifies identification by scf_id rather than UUID, which contrasts with list operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools like scf_get_control, so slightly less than perfect.

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