get_control_objectives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' and explains default summary behavior vs paged full records. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, which would enrich transparency further.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return details, then alternatives. Every sentence earns its place; no 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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the key behavioral distinctions (summary vs paging), read-only nature, and points to sibling tools for related use cases. Complete for an API of this complexity.

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 75%. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the offset/limit semantics (summary vs full records). It does not clarify server_version or model_id, but these are adequately named in 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 the tool retrieves the control objective matrix for a threat model, with specific verb+resource. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools: get_control_objective for single CO, assess_model for 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: default summary mode, use offset/limit for paging, and names alternatives with clear conditions ('For a single CO... use get_control_objective; for pass/fail assurance scoring use assess_model').

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