describe_scope

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

The description indicates the tool is read-only (discovers, lists) and outputs a set of vocabulary items, which implies no side effects. Given no annotations, this is reasonably transparent. Missing details like permissions or rate limits, but the core behavior is clear.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and benefit, and the second lists outputs and usage guidance. Every sentence is valuable and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, outputs in detail, and usage guidance. The lack of output schema is compensated by listing output fields. Missing documentation of the version parameter slightly detracts from completeness for a simple tool.

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 does not mention the sole parameter 'version' at all, even though schema coverage is 0%. For a single optional parameter, the description could have explained its purpose, but it does not, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 specific verbs 'discover' and 'lists' to state what the tool does, and it clearly enumerates the output fields (providers, resource_types, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings (get_constraints, validate) by positioning itself as a preliminary discovery step.

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 advises to 'Call this first if unsure of valid scope values,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare to get_constraints or validate or state when not to use it, leaving some room for improvement.

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