check_scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks authorization but does not explain what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns boolean, throws error, or modifies state). Return value behavior is not clarified, which is a gap for a tool that likely outputs a boolean or result.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. It perfectly balances brevity with essential information.

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 the presence of an output schema and only one parameter, the description is reasonably complete for a simple authorization check tool. However, the lack of clarity on return behavior (what does 'check' return? a boolean?) and absence of any error handling context (what if scope.yaml missing?) leaves some gaps. The output schema likely fills some of this, but the description could be more explicit.

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 description provides some semantics for the single parameter `target` by mentioning it should be checked against 'scope.yaml.' Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates meaningfully. However, it does not elaborate on format or constraints (e.g., must be a URL, IP, hostname). Still, for a single param, the context is helpful.

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 checks authorization of a `target` against a scope.yaml file before running red-team tools. The verb 'check' and resource 'scope' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are direct attack/audit tools rather than a preflight authorization check.

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 explicitly says to run this tool 'before running any red-team tool,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, though the purpose as a prerequisite makes that less critical. The sibling tools are all red-team tools, so the usage is well implied.

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