Get controls for an ISM OSCAL profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes the return type (resolved set of controls) but does not explain pagination behavior for `limit` and `offset`, default values for `version`, or any side effects. For a read tool, this is minimal but incomplete.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks details on pagination, default behavior, parameter constraints, and how it relates to similar tools. The description misses critical context for effective use.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It mentions `profile` and `version` generically but does not describe `limit` and `offset` at all. The enum for profile is not elaborated beyond the brief mention of classification and E8 levels.

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 returns the resolved set of controls for a given ISM OSCAL profile and version. It specifies the profile types (classification baseline or Essential Eight maturity level), distinguishing it from siblings like `get_control` or `list_controls` which have different scopes.

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 implies use when you need controls for a specific profile version, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `list_controls` or `get_controls`. No when-not or comparative context is given.

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