scope_set

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by saying 'Replace the entire scope', disclosing that the previous scope is fully overwritten. It adds context about the target types accepted, going beyond the annotation.

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?

Three concise sentences: action, usage timing, and parameter example. No redundancy, all information front-loaded and relevant.

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 single-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and the parameter format. No additional context is necessary.

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 only lists 'targets' as an array of strings. The description adds essential semantics by defining it as 'list of IPs, CIDRs, domains' and provides a concrete example, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Replace the entire scope with a new list of targets' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like scope_add/scope_remove/scope_clear. The additional phrase 'Use this at the start of an engagement' reinforces the intended use case.

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('at the start of an engagement to set all authorized targets at once'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'entire scope' wording implies it is not for incremental changes, which is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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