scope_clear

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals potential damage, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying the concrete effect: all restrictions are cleared and all targets become allowed. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 consists of two concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and effect, the second provides usage timing. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail.

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 with no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description fully covers purpose, effect, and usage context. There are no gaps that would hinder correct invocation.

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 input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adequately describes the unconditional action.

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: clearing all scope restrictions and reverting to lab mode. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scope_add, scope_remove, and scope_set, which modify scope in specific ways.

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 explicit timing guidance ('Use at end of engagement'), which helps the agent know when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a reset action.

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