tandem_scope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so well: it states the boundary is immutable, clarifies that data isolation is not an OS sandbox, and warns that execution_profiles reflects defaults rather than effective overrides. It does not explicitly say 'read-only', but 'inspect' plus 'immutable' conveys it.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by three dense clarifications that each prevent a common misinterpretation. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter introspection tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what scope is, how folder boundaries work, what execution_profiles represents, and what it does not mean (effective settings, OS sandbox). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it appropriately and interpret results without further context.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful conceptual context about what 'scope' includes—project boundary, launch folders, and profile defaults—which helps the agent interpret any returned fields even without parameter details.

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 first sentence states a specific action and object: 'Inspect the immutable project boundary and available computation profile defaults.' This clearly frames the tool as an inspection utility. It doesn't name sibling tools for contrast, but the term 'scope' plus the 'immutable' boundary and 'defaults' caveats make 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 gives no direct 'use this when' guidance or reference to alternatives. It does add context about what the tool reports (launch-folder isolation, client-granted directories, defaults vs effective settings), which helps an agent understand relevance, but the agent must infer when to call it relative to siblings like tandem_start or tandem_continue.

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