get_control

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the response contains (risks, related controls, crosswalk references) and that include_sections=false yields a compact record, which is meaningful beyond the annotations.

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 concise, information-dense sentences. The main purpose and id formats are front-loaded, followed by the optional flag guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Given the rich annotations, an output schema, and only two parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the lookup key, the response contents, and the compaction option.

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%, but the description fully compensates: it explains the id parameter with concrete accepted formats and explains the behavior of include_sections. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get one AIGF control by id, and enumerates the included related data (risks, related controls, crosswalk references). The accepted id examples also help distinguish this from sibling list/map tools.

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?

It clearly implies use when retrieving a single control by id, and gives guidance on include_sections for compactness. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_controls or find_by_external_reference, so the when-not-to-use context is left to inference.

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