run_control_test

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, a useful behavioral constraint beyond annotations. However, it doesn't explain side effects, success/failure behavior, or return values, which is a gap given the lack of output schema.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated immediately. Excellent efficiency.

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?

For a record-creation tool, the description is minimal but includes a key prerequisite. However, it lacks explanation of the 'result' parameter semantics, what 'attest' entails, and when to use this over other test/control tools. With no output schema, more context would help an agent call it 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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantics about how parameters like notes, fields, or result relate to the control test. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (create/attest) and the resource (control test, sn_compliance_control_test). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic record tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like run_atf_test or create_grc_control.

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 a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_atf_test or create_grc_control. No context on selection criteria or scenarios.

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