service_scope_info

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 states it returns metadata, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, error behavior, permissions required, or what happens when the tenantId is not found. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and the key context (used by Postgres config and Vault token index paths). There is no redundant or filler text; every phrase adds meaning.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned metadata contains, how the parameters influence the result, or any constraints on usage. An agent would lack sufficient information to call this tool correctly and interpret its response.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions 'app/tenant/principal' which hints at the three parameters (userId, tenantId, accountId), but it does not explicitly map them. The description does not clarify the meaning of each parameter, their optionality, or their role in scoping. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 returns scoping metadata and specifically ties it to Postgres config and Vault token index paths, which is a distinct purpose from sibling tools like service_connection_info or fastly_get_config. It uses a specific verb (Return) and resource (scoping metadata). However, it could be more explicit about the meaning of 'app/tenant/principal' relative to the parameters, so it misses a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. Given the large set of sibling tools, this lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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