get_control_objective

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description contributes only the word 'full,' implying the complete record rather than a partial projection; it adds nothing about error behavior for a missing sys_id or about what 'full details' encompasses. With annotations carrying most of the load, a 3 fits.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that a little more guidance would have been worth the extra clause.

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 simple one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and how to identify the record. It stops short of describing the shape of 'full details' or failure modes, which leaves the agent with a minimally viable picture.

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%, and the schema already documents sys_id as a '32-char sys_id of the Control Objective.' The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation guidance beyond that, so the schema does all the work and the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (a single Control Objective) with the lookup key (sys_id), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_control_objectives, so an agent must infer that this one returns a single record while that one returns 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?

The phrase 'a single' implies this is the follow-up to list_control_objectives, but nothing explicitly says when to use this instead of the list tool or what happens if the sys_id is unknown. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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