get_mitigation_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the output structure (groups, defense_in_depth, unmapped) and details for each control. However, it omits explicit statements about idempotency or permission requirements, but being a get tool, safety is implied.

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: a one-sentence summary, bullet list of output details, and use cases. It is well-structured and front-loaded with essential information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description still provides valuable context about the grouped view and use cases. It is complete for a read tool with no gaps.

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 67%, with co_id and model_id described, but server_version lacks description. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 'Get the current mitigation group structure for a control objective', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like set_mitigation_groups and other get_* tools by focusing on mitigation groups.

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 explicitly lists three use cases, including before set_mitigation_groups, when reviewing a CO's assessment, and when deciding unmapped controls. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool.

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