jumpcloud_scope_info

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

The description states 'Read-only' and 'Risk: low', which are useful behavioral disclosures given no annotations are provided. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 four short, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence contributes distinct information: purpose, usage, mutation exclusion, and risk. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers purpose, usage, and risk but leaves parameter semantics and return format unspecified. With no output schema and no annotations, the description could provide more detail on how to use parameters and what output to expect, though it adequately conveys the tool's core function.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'userId' and 'tenantId' parameters. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify how they relate to resolving scope or whether one or both are needed.

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 is a 'Read-only scope resolver' and specifies the resource: 'effective app/tenant/user scope and storage locations'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'jumpcloud_tenant_scope_validate' by indicating it resolves rather than validates, and is read-only.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you need the effective app/tenant/user scope and storage locations' and 'Do not use for mutation', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not name an alternative tool for mutation or validation, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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