get_active_scope

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

With no annotations, the description effectively communicates that the tool is a read-only report with no destructive side effects. It implies safe usage without altering state. However, it does not detail error behavior or edge cases (e.g., what happens if scope is not set), but for a simple informational tool, this is sufficient.

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 three sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately follows with usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

While the description covers purpose and usage well, it is incomplete because it fails to explain the three optional parameters. These parameters are likely used to specify paths for resolution, and their absence from the description leaves the agent uncertain about how to use them. Given the tool's simplicity, this omission significantly reduces completeness.

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 three parameters (repo_root, vault_root, chroma_path) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning no descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention these parameters at all, failing to explain their purpose or how they influence the tool's behavior. This is a critical gap, as the description adds no value over the raw 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('which repo this codelore server is currently scoped to'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that other tools already refuse to resolve to codelore's source, making this tool useful for sanity-checking.

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 tells when to use the tool ('useful to sanity-check before a multi-step task, or to debug a misconfigured .mcp.json') and when not ('Not required before calling other tools: they already refuse...'). This provides clear guidance on context.

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