scope_exclude

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait (exclusions override allowlist), but lacks information on persistence, reversibility, or permissions. More transparency is needed for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. The verb 'Mark' and resource 'target as out-of-scope' are front-loaded, and the sentence about override adds value efficiently.

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 tool, the description covers purpose and key behavior but omits context like target format, statefulness, and how to undo an exclusion. This gap may hinder agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'target', the description adds no extra meaning about what constitutes a valid target (e.g., domain, IP). The schema only provides the name, leaving the agent to guess the format.

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 marks a target as out-of-scope, with a distinguishing behavioral note that exclusions override the allowlist. This differentiates it from sibling tools like scope_add and scope_remove.

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 usage for exclusion but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus scope_remove or scope_add, nor provides alternative guidance. The note about override is helpful but insufficient for clear decision-making.

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