get_control_objective

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses key behaviors: returns structured data including verdict and control mappings, and details tombstoned CO handling (removed flag, omitted verdict). It does not cover error conditions or authorization, but provides solid behavioral context for a read operation.

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 concise (5 sentences, two paragraphs) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, from the main function to edge-case behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool retrieves a single control objective and has an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what is returned, tombstoned behavior, and the verdict. It is complete for an AI agent to understand and use correctly.

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 67% (two of three parameters described). The description does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema; it only reiterates the co_id format. For server_version, no additional guidance is provided. The description marginally supplements 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 clearly states it retrieves a single control objective with its composer verdict, specifying returned data (typed fields, control IDs, reachability verdict). It distinguishes from the plural sibling 'get_control_objectives' by focusing on a single entity and detailing tombstoned behavior.

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 for fetching one CO with verdict, and contrasts with tombstoned handling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'get_control' or 'get_control_assumption_groups', leaving some ambiguity despite clear context.

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