scope_show

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only action via 'Show' and adds an important behavioral nuance: an empty scope indicates it is not enforced. While it does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or discuss permissions, the tool's simplicity and zero-parameter design make this sufficient for a clear behavioral profile.

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, front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 (zero params, read-only nature), the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool shows and interprets an edge case (empty = not enforced). The output schema is present, so return values are documented separately, and the description does not need to cover them.

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 the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The schema is trivially complete (100% coverage) and there is no parameter-specific information expected or needed in the description.

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 with a specific verb+resource ('Show the current authorized scope') and adds a clarifying note about empty output meaning 'not enforced'. This distinguishes it from sibling scope_set, which is about modifying scope.

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 clear context that the tool is used to display the current authorized scope, making it obvious when an agent would invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., scope_set for changing scope) or provide explicit exclusion criteria, 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.