program_scope_add_targets

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention whether adding targets is additive or replaces the existing list, whether a program must be active, any validation performed on targets, or error conditions. For a stateful operation ('current program'), this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the lack of annotations, an output schema, and parameter details, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not address the active program requirement, the additive behavior, target format, or relationship to other program_scope tools. The description is adequate for a trivial tool but leaves too much ambiguity for safe invocation in this complex 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?

The input schema defines 'targets' only as an array of strings, and the description does not elaborate on the expected format (e.g., IPs, hostnames, URLs, ranges). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what constitutes a valid target, but it merely repeats the parameter name without adding meaning.

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 action (add targets) and the resource (the current program's in-scope list), making the tool's primary function unambiguous. It is distinct from siblings like program_scope_remove_targets and program_scope_list by the verb and target. However, it does not explicitly mention how this differs from the non-program scope_add tool, so it is not maximally distinguishing.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling scope-related tools (scope_add, program_scope_remove_targets, program_scope_allow, etc.), an agent gets no direction on selection criteria, such as 'use this to expand the in-scope list for the active program' or 'for checking current scope use program_scope_list'. The usage context is only implied by the name.

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