Get program scope (in / out of scope assets)

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 does disclose the return surface (severity, target/notes, eligibility, archive status) and that the result is exhaustive. However, it says nothing about result size, pagination, auth requirements, or whether archived items are excluded by default beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the scope of what is returned front-loaded ahead of the advisory usage note. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields so an agent knows what comes back. It is nearly complete for a read-only listing tool, missing only volume/pagination expectations and permission notes.

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 all four parameters (program, severity, in_scope_only, include_archived) are already documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds only the useful note that target/notes is 'often a URL or domain', which is marginal field-level context rather than parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: the complete in-scope/out-of-scope asset list for a BI.ZONE program, plus the fields each asset carries. An agent can distinguish it from get_program (metadata) or search_scope (filtered lookup), though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'This is the authoritative list to check before testing a target' gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer search_scope or get_program, and no exclusion criteria. The agent must infer the routing.

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