get_control_objective

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It declares read-only nature, explains the return payload (typed fields, control IDs, reachability verdict), and describes tombstoned CO behavior with the verdict omission rationale.

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 organized into three short paragraphs, each with a distinct function: purpose, return details, and edge-case behavior. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence contributes value, earning a high but not perfect conciseness score.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description adds critical context that the schema cannot convey: tombstone semantics, the deterministic nature of the verdict, and redirection to sibling tools. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is complete and well-rounded.

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 only 67% (server_version lacks a description), and the tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The undocumented server_version parameter remains unexplained, leaving the agent to guess its purpose.

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 the tool gets a single control objective with its composer verdict, using specific language like 'Get a single control objective'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing get_control_objectives for the full matrix and assess_model for pass/fail assurance scoring.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'For the full CO matrix use get_control_objectives; for pass/fail assurance scoring use assess_model.' This directly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives, and also covers the tombstoned CO edge case.

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