get_controls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-generation of controls if not yet generated, default exclusion of orphaned controls, and that each returned control has a boolean 'orphaned' field. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the 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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the main purpose, the second explains auto-generation, and the third covers the orphaned detail. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers key behaviors (auto-generation, orphaned handling) and mentions the 'orphaned' field. Given that an output schema exists, it's not required to explain return values. Pagination and filtering parameters are documented in the schema. The description is fairly complete for the tool's complexity and number of parameters.

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 91%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by explaining the concept of orphaned controls and the 'include_orphaned' parameter's effect, but it does not significantly enhance meaning for other parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool gets implementation controls for a threat model, specifying that it returns controls to satisfy control objectives and auto-generates them if not present. This is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_control' or 'list_*' tools.

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 exclusion of orphaned controls and how to include them, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_control' for a specific control or the various list tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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