get_co_scientist_scope_policy

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' and the repeated 'Returns' strongly imply a read-only operation, and the return-content summary is useful. However, the description never directly states that this call has no side effects, requires no special authorization, or is safe to invoke at any time.

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: a one-line purpose sentence, three concise trigger bullets, one workflow-position line, and a short return summary. Every sentence earns its place and no padding 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?

There is no output schema, so it is important that the description names the returned categories, which it does. It also clarifies when and where to call the tool. It stops short of detailing the exact structure or format of the policy items, but for a zero-parameter, low-complexity policy lookup, the coverage is adequate.

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 input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the agent to resolve. This meets the zero-parameter baseline, and the description adds useful context by summarizing what the returned policy will contain.

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 opens with an unambiguous verb+resource pairing: 'Get the Phase 0 Co-Scientist scope and safety policy.' It also enumerates the exact output content (accepted domains, blocked domains, approval-required actions, Phase 0 limits) and provides a workflow position, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like screen_co_scientist_scope.

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?

It provides explicit 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' with three specific conditions and a 'WORKFLOW POSITION' note. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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