NocturnusAI

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), specifies what is returned ('named scopes'), and clarifies exclusions ('global partition is always present but not listed'). However, it lacks details on output format, ordering, or potential errors.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial context about exclusions. Every phrase adds value without repetition, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and what it excludes. A minor gap is the lack of output format details, but for a list operation with no parameters, this is acceptable.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on tool behavior without redundant parameter info, earning a baseline score above 3 due to efficient handling of the parameter-less case.

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 specific action ('List all named scopes') and resource ('in the knowledge base'), with explicit differentiation from siblings by specifying what is included (named scopes) and excluded (global/unscoped partition). It distinguishes from tools like 'delete_scope', 'fork_scope', and 'merge_scope' by focusing on listing rather than modifying.

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 usage context by mentioning 'hypothetical contexts or reasoning branches' and the knowledge base, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'context' or 'recall'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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