get_control_requirements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. The description provides basic function but lacks operational context needed for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second specifies the return types. There's zero waste, no redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the most important information first.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and returns. However, without annotations covering behavioral aspects and no output schema to describe return format, the description should ideally provide more operational context about authentication, error handling, or result structure to be truly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'control' parameter. The description adds marginal value by providing example values ('e.g., AC-2, SC-13, IA-5') which are helpful but essentially repeat what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage where the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 specific action ('Get all FedRAMP requirements mapped to a specific NIST control') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact return types ('KSI items and FRMR requirements that reference the control'). It uses precise terminology that differentiates it from tools like 'get_ksi', 'get_frmr_document', or 'list_controls'.

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 usage context by mentioning what the tool returns (FedRAMP requirements mapped to NIST controls), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ksi', 'get_frmr_document', or 'analyze_control_coverage'. It provides some guidance through its specificity but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion statements.

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