forcepoint_scope_info

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a valuable safety disclosure in the absence of annotations. It does not reveal error behavior, return structure, or the meaning of the paths, but the read-only flag covers the main side-effect concern.

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 that communicates the action and the read-only feature without any fluff. Every phrase adds value.

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 simple info tool with an optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and safety profile. However, it lacks details about the actual path structure and does not place the tool in context relative to siblings, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 documents a single optional `userId` parameter with no description. The description's use of 'user-scoped' implies that this parameter controls the scope, adding meaningful context beyond the schema. It does not explain the parameter's format, optionality, or default behavior, so the baseline is maintained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a concrete resource ('user-scoped Postgres and Vault paths'), clearly distinguishing it from generic tools. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, so it falls short of the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many related siblings (e.g., forcepoint_connection_info, forcepoint_user_get). No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess.

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