get_control

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining that the properties parameter limits the output to named properties. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not disclose error handling or other constraints. Given the annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter clarification follows immediately. Efficient and easy to scan.

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?

With no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description should explain all parameters and return behavior. It describes the return structure but omits essential context for the required parameters 'source' and 'control', making it incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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 the description must compensate. It explains the 'properties' parameter but leaves the required 'source' and 'control' parameters unexplained, and 'app' is not clarified either. Only one of four parameters receives meaningful description.

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 a single control (or screen/App) and enumerates the specific attributes returned (type, variant, parent, children, property formulas). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_controls by emphasizing 'One control' versus a collection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like list_controls or search_formulas. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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