list_scopes

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects (none, read-only), authentication requirements (X-Tenant-ID header, FACT_READ permission), rate limiting, and error conditions (none). This is comprehensive for a read-only listing tool.

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 four sentences, each providing distinct information: listing action, content shown, side effects, and operational requirements. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, scope inclusion/exclusion, safety profile, auth, rate limits, and errors. An agent can confidently invoke this tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. However, it adds value by clarifying that the global scope is omitted from the listing, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the 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 clearly states the tool lists all named scopes in the knowledge base, distinguishing it from mutation tools like delete_scope or merge_scope. It specifies what is shown (hypothetical contexts/reasoning branches) and what is not (global unscoped partition).

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 when to use this tool (to get an overview of scopes) and, through contrast with siblings, when not to (for modifying scopes). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the read-only nature makes exclusions clear.

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