get_control_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose output content ('Full control details including linked monitors') and is evidently a read operation, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for unknown codes, or rate limits; an output schema already exists, so the Returns line is partly redundant.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args/Returns structure is scannable with no filler. The docstring-style framing is slightly verbose but every line earns its place.

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 an output schema, the description covers what is fetched and what comes back. Given the output schema handles return detail and there are no annotations, remaining gaps (auth, errors, code format validation) are minor.

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, and it does: it names the parameter and provides concrete format examples ('DCF-71', 'DCF-12'). This adds real meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema, though it stops short of stating whether the code is case-sensitive or validated.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific control'), clearly distinct from the sibling list_controls. However, it never names or contrasts with siblings like get_monitors_for_control, which also retrieves control-related detail, so differentiation is only partial.

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 phrase 'a specific control' plus the required control_code implies you must already know the identifier, which hints at usage. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_controls for discovery.

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