get_control_coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by revealing a non-obvious behavior: controls with evidence entirely above the caller's clearance are reported as gaps rather than omitted. It also specifies the as_of date format and default, adding useful operational context.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then the important clearance-related behavioral quirk, then the only parameter note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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?

The description is mostly complete for a simple read-only tool, and the output schema apparently handles return values. However, the framework parameter is unexplained, and there is no guidance on choosing this tool over related siblings like get_evidence_gaps or list_controls. These are meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It explains as_of as an ISO date with a default of today, but it says nothing about the framework parameter, its meaning, format, or filtering behavior. That leaves an important parameter completely undocumented.

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's resource ('evidence coverage per control') and the possible result values ('covered' or 'gap'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_evidence_gaps, but the per-control framing gives enough clarity to avoid fundamental confusion.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need per-control evidence coverage statuses, and it even clarifies an edge case around caller clearance affecting reported results. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use case is still clear.

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