scope_set

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses side effects (tools refuse out-of-scope hosts), wildcard behavior, and input format. It doesn't mention overwrite/persistence details, but the core state-changing behavior is clearly stated.

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?

Three compact segments: purpose, enforcement effect, and parameter format. No filler, front-loaded, and each 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 single-parameter setter with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, input format, and behavioral effect on related tools. Missing details are minor and easily inferred from the output schema or sibling tools.

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 schema only says hosts_json is a string with 0% description coverage; the description compensates by specifying JSON array or comma list, showing wildcard support, and giving a concrete example. This fully conveys parameter semantics beyond the 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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Set the authorized testing scope — an allowlist of hosts'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling scope_show and explaining its effect on traffic tools.

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?

It explicitly names the traffic tools (http_send, recon, hunt, secrets_hunt, param_discover) that will enforce the scope, telling the agent when this tool matters. It doesn't give exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough.

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