get_control_objectives

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses output content and default behavior, but does not mention read-only nature, prerequisite model existence, or any side effects. It covers pagination context but not performance or permission constraints.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds valuable information without fluff. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 output schema documents return values, the description covers default behavior and pagination. It is clear and useful, but could mention prerequisites (e.g., valid model_id) or distinguish from 'get_control_objective' for better completeness.

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 description adds meaning for 'limit' and 'offset' beyond the schema, explaining how they affect results (summary vs. detailed). However, 'server_version' and 'model_id' are not elaborated beyond their schema descriptions. Schema coverage is 75%.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'control objective matrix for a threat model', and explains that it returns COs with references to controls. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_control_objective' (singular) and 'get_controls'.

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 explains the default compact summary behavior and how to use offset/limit for specific COs, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. It lacks differentiation from similar siblings like 'list_effective_control_objectives'.

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