map_control_to_external

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

The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful scope context (supported frameworks and optional restriction), but it does not disclose behavior around unknown control IDs or empty mapping results; the output schema helps cover return shape.

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 tight sentences front-load the verb and object, then give the framework list and the optional restriction in a single clause. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 output schema, annotations, and sibling context, the description is nearly complete for tool selection and invocation. It names the framework set, explains the optional filter, and points to the relevant sibling for framework discovery; the only notable gap is the under-specified id parameter.

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. It explains the frameworks parameter well by tying it to named frameworks and list_reference_frameworks, but the required id parameter is only implied as 'one control' with no stated source or format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Crosswalk') and resource ('one control') and enumerates the target external frameworks, making the tool's scope immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from siblings like map_risks_to_controls and find_by_external_reference, which address different mapping directions.

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 clearly communicates the intended use case—mapping a single control to external frameworks—and points to list_reference_frameworks for valid framework names. It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternative tools such as find_by_external_reference, so it lacks formal exclusions.

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