fork_scope

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

No annotations present, but the description thoroughly discloses side effects (additive state mutation, source unchanged), auth requirements, rate limiting, and possible errors, leaving no ambiguity about tool's behavior.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, usage scenario, and important side effects/auth/errors without any filler. Each sentence adds distinct value, and information is organized logically.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, side effects, auth, rate limiting, and errors. For a simple tool with 2 parameters, this is complete and eliminates ambiguity.

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% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds extra context about using null for global scope in sourceScope, which goes beyond the schema. Baseline 3 plus added value gives 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 uses a specific verb 'fork' and resource 'knowledge base scope', and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like merge_scope and delete_scope. The git branch analogy further clarifies unique purpose.

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 explicitly recommends using the tool for hypothetical reasoning without modifying the main KB, and the git branch analogy provides a clear mental model. It contrasts with other operations like merge or delete, and lists auth prerequisites.

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