set_scope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that static assets and OPTIONS requests are always ignored regardless of scope, and that subdomains must be listed explicitly. These details go beyond the schema and provide useful context for the agent.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, usage context, behavioral note, and examples. It is not excessively verbose, though the reset behavior is mentioned twice (once in examples and once in Args). Minor redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers essentials: when to call, what it does, parameter semantics, and behavioral quirks. It doesn't mention error behavior or what happens if called before proxy start, but the explicit 'Call AFTER' hint partially covers that. Overall, it's complete enough for typical use.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so comprehensively: 'List of domains to record. Subdomains must be listed explicitly. Empty list = record all traffic.' Examples clarify the expected format and the reset behavior, leaving no ambiguity about the single parameter.

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 function: 'Limit which domains the proxy records.' This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_proxy or proxy_status. It also provides concrete examples showing the intended effect, 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 explicitly instructs to call AFTER manage_proxy(action="start"), providing a key usage prerequisite. It explains when to use the tool ('focus on specific target domains and reduce noise') and how to reset to default behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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