program_scope_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what happens when no active scope exists, whether any state is changed, or what the return value format is. This is minimal transparency for a tool that could have edge cases.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb.

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 tool with no output schema, the description could explain more about what 'current active program scope' means or what the output looks like. However, it does provide a clear high-level intent. The context is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks detail about return values or edge cases, making it a minimal viable description.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to explain. The schema already indicates an empty properties object, and the description does not conflict with this.

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 ('Show') and the resource ('current active program scope'), which is specific and distinguishable from siblings like program_scope_list that list all scopes or program_scope_start that initiates a scope. The verb+resource pairing is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's function.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used to check the active scope before starting or modifying a program, nor does it reference program_scope_list or other sibling tools. The usage context is entirely absent.

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