scope_list

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the special semantic of an empty list: 'Empty list means lab mode — all targets allowed.' This adds behavioral context that is not deducible from the schema or annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: two short sentences that immediately state the purpose and the empty-list behavior. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only listing tool, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what an empty result means, and is accompanied by a readOnlyHint annotation. No output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret its result.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information needed. It appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior and output interpretation.

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: 'List all authorized targets in scope.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (authorized targets in scope), distinguishing it from sibling tools like scope_add, scope_remove, and scope_clear which mutate scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to list in-scope targets. It also explains the meaning of an empty list (lab mode, all targets allowed), which is valuable guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as program_scope_list, which serves a similar purpose.

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