Get Mitigation Groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a solid job: it discloses the output categories (groups, defense_in_depth, unmapped), the semantics of grouping (within=AND, across=OR), and that unmapped controls are available for assignment. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'Get the current structure' and the use case 'Before set_mitigation_groups' make this clear.

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 well structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then return details as a compact list, then concrete use cases. Every segment earns its place and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the key semantics an agent needs: what the return groups mean, why defense_in_depth is tracked but not required, and how unmapped controls are used. With an output schema present, the lack of detailed return-field explanations is acceptable, though the description could more fully explain the within/across AND/OR logic.

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 67%, with co_id and model_id already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameters themselves and does not explain server_version, which is undocumented even though it is required. This is adequate but not improved beyond 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 current mitigation group structure for a control objective and specifies the returned grouped view with details. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from generic 'get' tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar group-fetching siblings like get_control_assumption_groups or get_functional_satisfaction_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?

A dedicated 'Use cases' section explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: before set_mitigation_groups, when reviewing a CO's assessment, and when deciding which unmapped controls to assign. It gives clear context but does not state when not to use it or name alternative group-fetching tools.

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