get_sufficiency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool returns a boolean-like status (whether assertions cover all aspects) and discloses the server-side evaluation timing. It does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only (non-destructive), but 'Get' strongly implies it. The description is transparent enough for safe usage.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence is a clear, front-loaded statement of purpose. The second adds essential behavioral context. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns, and a crucial behavioral note (server-side evaluation timing). It could mention prerequisites (e.g., assertions must be submitted) but the 'when assertions are submitted' hint covers that. Overall adequate.

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% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'server_version' parameter.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('sufficiency status for a single control'), and the specific outcome ('Returns whether the submitted assertions collectively cover all aspects of the control'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_control' or 'check_control_gaps' by specifying sufficiency evaluation.

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 mentions that evaluation happens server-side when assertions are submitted and that no CI round-trip is needed, implying quick status retrieval. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives (e.g., 'check_control_gaps', 'get_control') or specify when to use which.

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