get_controls

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals a non-obvious side effect: if controls have never been generated, the first list-mode call triggers generation, possibly continuing in the background. It also describes response shapes, 404 behavior in detail mode, default exclusion of orphaned controls, and the orphaned boolean flag. This is thorough and honest for a 'get' tool.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear mode breakdowns. It is front-loaded with purpose and read-only note, then uses labeled paragraphs (List mode, Detail mode) to organize complex information. Every sentence contributes operational value, and the text avoids fluff or repetition.

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 complexity (two modes, 12 parameters, side effects), the description is remarkably complete. It covers mode selection, parameter applicability, response format, error behavior, versioning, and the orphaned-control concept. The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained in detail, and the description wisely focuses on operational context.

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?

Although schema coverage is high (92%), the description adds significant meaning beyond individual parameter definitions. It explains that control_id switches between modes, that list-mode filters/pagination/toggles are ignored in detail mode, and that include_orphaned=False defaults to excluding orphaned controls. This cross-parameter behavioral context is not present in the schema and substantially aids correct invocation.

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's purpose: 'Get implementation controls for a threat model — list or single-control detail.' It specifies the resource (controls), the verb (get), and distinguishes two modes (list vs. detail) with specific triggers (control_id omitted vs. set). This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_control_status or delete_control, which are clearly for mutations.

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 provides clear context on when to use each mode: 'List mode (control_id omitted)' and 'Detail mode (control_id set).' It also explains which parameters apply to which mode and instructs polling get_control_generation_status if results look incomplete. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternative retrieval tools (e.g., list_effective_control_objectives), so it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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