x_scope_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Resolve' which implies a read/lookup operation, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether it can fail, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. The mention of Vault/Postgres adds usage context but not behavioral transparency.

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. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it avoids redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simple lookup nature.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the resolved details look like, but it does not. It also lacks information about error cases, return format, or how the details are used. For an agent to confidently invoke the tool and interpret results, the description is incomplete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description helps by indicating the scoping patterns: 'tenant/user or tenant/account'. This clarifies that tenantId is combined with either userId or accountId. However, it does not fully specify each parameter's role or whether tenantId alone is valid, leaving some ambiguity that the schema does not resolve.

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: 'Resolve tenant/user or tenant/account scoping details used by Vault secret paths and Postgres configuration rows.' It uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and a specific resource ('scoping details'), and the mention of Vault/Postgres differentiates it from sibling tools like x_connection_info or x_config_get.

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 implies the tool is used to obtain scoping details for Vault paths or Postgres config, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The purpose is clear, but usage guidance is only implicit rather than direct.

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