scf_get_control

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by specifying exactly what the read returns: description, mapped frameworks, assessment objectives, and linked evidence items. This gives the agent a concrete picture of the operation without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The primary action and target are front-loaded, followed by a concise list of returned content.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the input format via the schema and the key return categories in prose. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though exact output structure is not specified.

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 single parameter scf_id is already fully described with a format and examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that the lookup is 'by ID', so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('a single SCF control by ID'), and clarifies the catalog scope ('from the reference catalog'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like scf_list_controls and from scf_get_scoped_control, which operates on scoped controls.

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 'from the reference catalog' implies this is the tool for reference-catalog controls rather than scoped controls, providing some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over scf_list_controls, scf_get_scoped_control, or scf_list_assessment_objectives, nor does it provide exclusions.

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