get_program_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 discloses the tool's behavior by specifying the return data (asset types, identifiers, bounty eligibility, severity caps) and a use case, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'page_size' parameter in schema), or error handling. The description doesn't contradict any annotations, but with no annotations, it only partially fulfills the transparency requirement.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and output, and the second provides a usage tip. It's front-loaded with essential information and has zero wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, output details, and a use case, but lacks information on output format (e.g., structure of returned assets), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without an output schema, more detail on return values would be beneficial, but it's adequate for basic understanding.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters ('program_handle' and 'page_size'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints not covered. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'in-scope assets for a bug bounty program' with specific output details (asset types, identifiers, bounty eligibility, severity caps). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_programs' or 'get_report' by focusing on program scope rather than programs or reports themselves, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_program_weaknesses' which might be related.

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 implied usage context ('Useful when drafting reports to pick the correct asset'), suggesting it's for report preparation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_programs' (which might list programs without scope details) or 'get_program_weaknesses' (which might focus on vulnerabilities rather than assets), nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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