map_risks_to_controls

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing important behavior: controls are ordered by coverage count, control_type restricts results, uncovered risks are reported, and unresolved inputs are surfaced. This gives the agent accurate expectations for the tool's output and edge-case handling.

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 dense but every sentence carries operational value: input modes, limits, union semantics, ordering, filtering, and reporting behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler or repetition.

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 a 5-parameter tool with no required parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all relevant invocation semantics, constraints, and result-shaping behavior. An agent can correctly decide how to call this tool for single, multi-query, id-based, and filtered mapping scenarios.

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 compensates fully: it explains risk_ids (up to 25), free-text query behavior (top k matching risks), up to 5 queries with unioned results, control_type as PREV or DET, and k as the match count. Every parameter's role is described beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Map risks to the controls that mitigate them.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list/get/search tools by focusing on the mapping relationship and the combination of risks-to-controls coverage semantics.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use each input mode and specifically calls out the multi-query use case for 'both X and Y' questions. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is strongly implied and actionable.

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