get_control_objectives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses read-only behavior, tombstone handling (removed: true) and that verdict is omitted, and that offset/limit are ignored in single mode. It lacks detail on authentication or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only tool with an output schema.

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 well-structured with clear mode sections, bullet points for readability, and every sentence provides useful information. It is concise without being terse, and the use of bold and code formatting aids scanning.

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's moderate complexity (two modes, 5 parameters), the description covers all essential aspects: mode selection, tombstone behavior, default behavior, and parameter relevance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structure, and the description covers the gaps (e.g., what happens to offset/limit in single mode).

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 80%, and the description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the behavior of offset/limit (0 = summary only) and the mode selection based on co_id. It clarifies the default behavior and the ignore rule in single mode, which goes beyond the schema's basic type descriptions.

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 gets the control objective matrix or a single control objective, with explicit two-mode behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like assess_model and list_effective_control_objectives by specifying its unique output (verdict, controls mapping).

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?

It explicitly describes the two modes and when to use each (co_id set vs omitted), and mentions that offset/limit are ignored in single mode. It also directs users to assess_model for pass/fail scoring, providing a clear alternative.

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