scope_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the optional probe 'fires one lightweight read' for actionable evidence, and it clarifies the classification categories. However, it does not explicitly state whether the overall operation is side-effect-free or whether decoding scopes involves any external calls beyond the optional probe.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the primary function first, then the optional probe behavior, then the supporting audit context. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name is present.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does enough by naming the output categories (callable, scope-gated, read-only) and the optional probe effect. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact output shape or response variants, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool will return and when the probe is relevant.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both probe and response_format. The description only restates that an optional probe exists and does not add new parameter-level meaning. This matches the baseline for fully schema-documented 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Decode the current token's granted OAuth scopes and classify every registered tool module: callable, scope-gated, or read-only.' This precisely states what the tool does and clearly separates it from the many sibling catalog, playback, and library tools.

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 implies usage as a gating audit tool with 'Supports the #329 gating audit,' but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like quota_probe, inspect_tool, or toolset_report. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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