get_scopes_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Obtiene' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether it requires authentication, returns a specific format, or has any side effects. For a simple table retrieval, this is minimal but still misses an explicit statement of non-mutating 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains the purpose but does not detail the return structure or any potential edge cases. For a zero-parameter table getter, this is sufficient to invoke the tool, but lacks richness compared to the best examples.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by stating what the table contains (scopes), which is not evident from the empty schema. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets it.

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 verb 'Obtiene' (Gets) and the resource 'la tabla de ámbitos' (the scopes table), with a clarifying parenthetical '(estatal, autonómico)' that distinguishes it from sibling table tools like get_matters_table and get_legal_ranges_table. It is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons with the many sibling table tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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