get_control_generation_status

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: 'Read-only; no side effects (polling does not trigger or alter generation)' and explains status semantics including deferred, failed, and elapsed_seconds with actionable guidance.

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?

Structured with a clear lead sentence, a trigger paragraph, and an organized status breakdown. Every sentence adds value—no filler, no repetition. The return shape and statuses are explained compactly.

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?

Covers the full return shape, all statuses, the inline-build exception, budget/deferred behavior, and failure handling. With an output schema described in text and no annotations, this is complete for a polling tool.

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 50%: model_id has a description, but server_version has none. The description doesn't mention server_version or add parameter-level detail. model_id is implicitly tied to the threat model, but server_version remains ambiguous, so the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Poll the async control-generation status for a threat model' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by referencing generate_threat_model / refine_threat_model as the initiators and positioning this tool as the polling counterpart.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'When generate_threat_model / refine_threat_model return a controls_status other than complete, controls are being authored in the background — poll this until a terminal state, then read the controls.' It also tells when not to poll: '{status: "none"} when controls were built inline'.

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