program_scope_end

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it does specify two actions (close scope, clear restrictions), it omits any mention of irreversibility, required prior state (e.g., must have an active program scope), or side effects on ongoing operations. This is a potentially destructive operation, but the description gives no warning or context.

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 primary action ('Close') and immediately states the effect. No waste or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter lifecycle tool, the description is reasonably complete. However, in the context of many sibling tools, it doesn't explain the relationship to 'program_scope_start' or when this should be invoked in a workflow. Still, the simplicity of the operation reduces the need for extensive detail.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and there is nothing additional to explain about parameters.

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's function: closing the current program scope and clearing scope restrictions. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scope_clear' and 'program_scope_start'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used after starting a program scope, or any exclusions (e.g., don't use if you only want to remove one target). Sibling tools like 'program_scope_remove_targets' imply alternative use cases, but no comparison is offered.

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