Get Control Assumption Groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and adds meaningful domain behavior: assumptions within a group are ANDed, groups are ORed, and a complete group marks the control as externally handled. It does not discuss auth or error cases, but the getter nature and semantics are transparent enough for an agent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a concise bulleted explanation of the AND/OR semantics. Every sentence adds value and no filler exists.

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 read-only control query with an output schema, the description gives the essential domain model: assumption groups, external claims, AND within groups, OR across groups, and the effect on externally-handled status. It could additionally state that this is the read counterpart to set_control_assumption_groups, but the sibling names already make that connection.

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 schema already describes model_id and control_id, but server_version is undocumented, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. With 67% schema coverage, the description does not need to restate everything, but it also does not compensate for the missing server_version context.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('assumption group structure') scoped to a control, then defines exactly what that structure means with an AND/OR explanation. This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like set_control_assumption_groups.

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 word 'Get' and 'current' provide clear retrieval context, and the description implies when an agent would want to inspect the assumption group structure. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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