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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly disclose side effects, return format, or safety guarantees. For a simple zero-parameter list, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description is adequately complete for a zero-parameter list tool: it states the action and target resource. However, since there is no output schema, it could have explicitly mentioned the return type (e.g., 'returns a list of scope objects'), but 'list all' sufficiently conveys the expected output for most agents.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so description does not need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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 'List all access scopes in the project' clearly identifies the verb (list), resource (access scopes), and scope (project). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_scope (single vs all) and create/update/delete operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for enumerating all scopes, contrasting with get_scope for a single scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are provided, but the guidance remains implicit.

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